DeepSight:

Yes, to an extent (-you cannot measure a subjective thing in the true sense-) but it goes beyond the capacity to measure a thing. You can never know how exactly I feel about say, a woman I am in love with. It is impossible for you to know.

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.

In case you havent noticed, you have not shown the reverse either.

You have not shown us just how a machine could be self-conscious. You have only said that you dont see why its impossible. Such a simple statement does not suffice for anything sir. And I warn you that it is a statement that can be made in response to virtually anything.

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.

This is extremely problematic reasoning. Pre-programming something is a wholly objective thing: it does not admit of subjectivity. You therefore cannot make a statement such as "preprogramming something to be subjective." That would be exactly as absurd as saying that you have pre-programmed something to be non-pre-programmed.

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.

Something that relates to the physical science of the body, such as the immune system is actually a matter of objective science and not a matter locked in to subjective experience.

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?

All the mapping in the world could not translate the specific feeling and nuance of a particular emotion - it could not convey it to another person - at best it could show that the emotion is there, or that it is intense - it could never capture the actual feeling of the emotion itself - the actual experience of it. That is the nature of a subjective experience. Whereas you can capture everything about a robot. Absolutely everything. As I said - it would even be mathematically precise.

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.

The nuance of an emotion differs from person to person and even from instance to instance.

DeepSight:


Yes, to an extent (-you cannot measure a subjective thing in the true sense-) but it goes beyond the capacity to measure a thing. You can never know how exactly I feel about say, a woman I am in love with. It is impossible for you to know. Because it is a completely subjective feeling with its own subjective flavor different from how perhaps you feel if you are in love with a woman. However, with a machine, such a pre-programmed feeling can always be nailed down to its every exact detail and preprogrammed nuance.

Not that I agree a machine could feel at all, but there you go: if it could - it would not be something subjective. It would be something infused, exact and determinable. It would even be mathematically precise.

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.

Diridiri, please repeatedly saying "I dont see why not" is just as vacant as you accuse the article of being with respect to the reverse. It says nothing.

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.

Phew. Well we will have to first agree that the machine experiences anything ab initio. I take it for granted you are consistent with your position that machines can have emotions, can therefore grieve, can be sad or happy, can be ashamed or embarrassed, can be lonely and dejected even?

LordReed:


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

And surely, you agree that with a machine, these could be measured: (if it could have such experiences, that is): as every indicator about a machine could theoretically be measured and accounted for.

DeepSight:


In case you havent noticed, you have not shown the reverse either.

You have not shown us just how a machine could be self-conscious. You have only said that you dont see why its impossible. Such a simple statement does not suffice for anything sir. And I warn you that it is a statement that can be made in response to virtually anything.

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.

DeepSight:


This is extremely problematic reasoning. Pre-programming something is a wholly objective thing: it does not admit of subjectivity. You therefore cannot make a statement such as "preprogramming something to be subjective." That would be exactly as absurd as saying that you have pre-programmed something to be non-pre-programmed.


Something that relates to the physical science of the body, such as the immune system is actually a matter of objective science and not a matter locked in to subjective experience.

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.

DeepSight:


All the mapping in the world could not translate the specific feeling and nuance of a particular emotion - it could not convey it to another person - at best it could show that the emotion is there, or that it is intense - it could never capture the actual feeling of the emotion itself - the actual experience of it. That is the nature of a subjective experience. Whereas you can capture everything about a robot. Absolutely everything. As I said - it would even be mathematically precise.

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.

And just another thought Diridiri - you said (and I agree) that a pure illogicality is impossible. You cited the example of saying that something is X and not X at the same time. Sadly you fail to see that you employ exactly this pure illogicality when you speak of pre-programming something to be subjective. This is exactly the same as something being X and not X at the same time.

Because something which is pre-programmed is by definition wholly objective: the very opposite of subjective.

DeepSight:
Diridiri, please repeatedly saying "I dont see why not" is just as vacant as you accuse the article of being with respect to the reverse. It says nothing.

You seem to misunderstand my opinion in this discourse. Saying "I don't see why not" is a direct challenge to the opinion "It is impossible".
In this context it is absolutely not vacant.

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.

This makes no sense. If anyone has the burden of proof, it is you: for we have yet to see such science actually emerge. Asking me to prove that something which has not been proven scientifically is impossible amounts to asking me to prove a negative and no one does that.

Furthermore - please do not evade the point that you have admitted that we cannot have any proof of self-consciousness. And thus, you are arguing for the possibility of creating something which you say is impossible to prove you have created.

This is as pure an illogicality as ever existed.

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.

What you confuse here is that it is the experience that is said to be subjective, not the human being.
I would have thought that was obvious.

DeepSight:


Phew. Well we will have to first agree that the machine experiences anything ab initio. I take it for granted you are consistent with your position that machines can have emotions, can therefore grieve, can be sad or happy, can be ashamed or embarrassed, can be lonely and dejected even?

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.

Yes, it is, barring errors and unintended consequences. At all events, every detail is measurable.

Have you ever heard of unsupervised machine learning?

Yes - and the method of such allegedly unsupervised learning is pre-programmed.

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.

It really doesnt work either, to simply posit the incredible, and defend same by saying that any protestation against it is from incredulity. That's rather circular. If something is incredible, or hasnt been done, its really up to you to show that it can be done.

DeepSight:


Hmm. Once again you have quite needlessly explained to me that which I (and I imagine everyone else) understand(s) and agree(s) with. Nevertheless, once again, thank you - for as I said - I like the meticulous.

To be clear - quantum physics does not seem "magical" to me - that is only a way of speaking, a sort of figure of speech, you might say. I am sure you have heard the quote - "any sufficiently advanced technology will be indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke.

Or what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance" - with respect to quantum entanglement.

The point rests in the simple illustration of the fact that one must be careful with deploying the "science may achieve that in future" response to certain questions. You seem to try to draw a line between something such as probing outside the universe and something such as making a robot experience subjectivity. You say the one is justifiably considered impossible while the other is not, for you - insisting that science might make the latter possible in future. If you have grasped the point about subjectivity you will see that this is a matter that goes to the root of logicality and is not a question of scientific advancement. I did ask you if a robot could be subjective in anything. This is what you need to dwell upon. It is frankly logically impossible because everything about a robot is preprogrammed. I could develop on this by asking if a robot can have opinions, and even freewill. These are questions you need to address yourself to in order to get to the root of this matter.



Let us be simple and clear: you mentioned infinity in a context. The context was the speculation that the universe could be infinite and as such there might be nothing like "outside the universe." You further responded that you may not be qualified to comment further as you are not an astrophysicist. With respect: there is no astrophysicist who can grasp the concept of infinity: and it is a contradiction in terms to say that material objects may be infinite.

I dont know if you notice a pattern developing here. You say, hey, science may do X in future. You also say hey, the universe may be infinite, but you cant discuss it because you are not qualified. In both scenarios you are implicitly introducing an escape hatch which locks away any examination of what you are saying. We cant examine the first because you have locked it away in the future. We cant examine the second because you have restricted it to astrophysicists. Even when no astrophysicist can grasp infinity.

All of this, without me even going into the fundamental problem I hinted at when you first stepped into the thread: do you realize that since you agree that we could never prove self-consciousness in a robot, then you are basically saying that science may be able to accomplish something which is impossible to prove has been accomplished.

Do you not see a major problem here?

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

Firstly, I said that it is opined that the universe might be infinite. I never attributed it to myself. It is this fact that required that I confess that I am not an astrophysicist. Secondly, 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.

You see, when you speak about being able to "compute that into the algorithms" you are objectively preprogramming a happening and there is nothing subjective about that. Ergo, it is not a subjective experience.
How this misses you guys is baffling.

DeepSight:


Yes, it is, barring errors and unintended consequences. At all events, every detail is measurable.

Interesting claim. I never spoke about whether the details were measurable or not, by the way.
Unfortunately, objectively false. Again, unsupervised machine learning. Although the end result is expected, the ways by which the computer manipulates the neural networks depends on a process akin to natural selection, which the programmer does not control. The resulting neural networks are not planned by the programmer (they are in a vague sense, but only in a vague sense), and it is typically a waste of time to even bother analyzing the neural networks themselves.

DeepSight:


Yes - and the method of such allegedly unsupervised learning is pre-programmed.

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

DeepSight:


It really doesnt work either, to simply posit the incredible, and defend same by saying that any protestation against it is from incredulity. That's rather circular. If something is incredible, or hasnt been done, its really up to you to show that it can be done.

This is a joke, isn't it?
Be reminded that your opinion is that the portion in the brain controlling consciousness is an "immaterial" essence of some unknown quality.
And yet my retort that this could be simulated in the brain by the brain itself is deemed "incredible" in comparison.

I could point out that you have yet to even provide an explanation as to how this immaterial essence even works, but I don't think I care a great deal, actually.

diridiri:


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

Let me show you how you are being circular here: let me reverse what you are doing to you, and see how it comes across. Perhaps that will help you understand. Here goes:

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

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

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.

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 possible.

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

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

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.

Subjective experience leads us to see that the functions of the physical body could only make sense in terms of a being for which they deliver experience to. In the absence of such a being, the entire construct collapses as meaningless. No worries: I will elucidate on this separately ahead.

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?

I am afraid you are the one with the problem here: because it is not the business of someone who says something is impossible to prove it. That would amount to demanding proof of a negative and no one does that. It is however the business of someone who says that something is possible to prove that it is indeed possible: and in this the burden falls squarely upon his case if the achievement of the allegedly possible thing is impossible to prove!

If a thing is impossible to prove to have been achieved, frankly, the person who says that the thing is impossible takes the day. The person who says it is possible is faced with an unsolvable quandary.

What you are doing makes no sense: for you are saying that since it is impossible to prove it has been achieved, then I would rest on that alone - even when no one can know that it has been achieved. Why on Earth will I not rest on the fact that its unprovable. Its equally unprovable that there isnt a teapot hanging above the universe. Whoever says there is, ought to prove it, and if thats impossible, then thats that. You cant shift the matter back to me. You simply cant. Thats asking me to prove a negative.

diridiri:


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

I will pocket the red as the closest thing to a concession that I may hope for.

What is programmed is programmed. It is not necessary to program every outcome, once you have programmed the method by which the machine learns to arrive at new outcomes.

You skip the hard questions with general answers such as "I dont see why not" - can you get down to specifics as to how a machine may have an opinion for example - on morality or beauty?

diridiri:


This is a joke, isn't it?

It is not a joke at all - I am not the one saying that machines may have emotions, may feel pain, may grieve, may get heartbroken, may be lonely and dejected and the like: all of which are not just patently absurd but by no means proven.

It is interesting, even if not new, that people can make incredible assertions and sit back to laugh at anyone who thinks they are incredible. For those who protest just how incredible such assertions are: you then say they are making an argument from incredulity!

Well done!

DeepSight:


Let me show you how you are being circular here: let me reverse what you are doing to you, and see how it comes across. Perhaps that will help you understand. Here goes:



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



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 possible.



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



Subjective experience leads us to see that the functions of the physical body could only make sense in terms of a being for which they deliver experience to. In the absence of such a being, the entire construct collapses as meaningless. No worries: I will elucidate on this separately ahead.



I am afraid you are the one with the problem here: because it is not the business of someone who says something is impossible to prove it. That would amount to demanding proof of a negative and no one does that. It is however the business of someone who says that something is possible to prove that it is indeed possible: and in this the burden falls squarely upon his case if the achievement of the allegedly possible thing is impossible to prove!

If a thing is impossible to prove to have been achieved, frankly, the person who says that the thing is impossible takes the day. The person who says it is possible is faced with an unsolvable quandary.

What you are doing makes no sense: for you are saying that since it is impossible to prove it has been achieved, then I would rest on that alone - even when no one can know that it has been achieved. Why on Earth will I not rest on the fact that its unprovable. Its equally unprovable that there isnt a teapot hanging above the universe. Whoever says there is, ought to prove it, and if thats impossible, then thats that. You cant shift the matter back to me. You simply cant. Thats asking me to prove a negative.

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?

Whats funny here? You program a thing with a specific method and path to learning how to deliver new outcomes - and then sit back, watch it do what it was programmed to do - namely learn - and assert that its unsupervised? Is that a joke?

DeepSight:


And surely, you agree that with a machine, these could be measured: (if it could have such experiences, that is): as every indicator about a machine could theoretically be measured and accounted for.

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.

I cant do anything with this. Its just wastefully circular. If a thing is unproven does that thereby show it to be possible? That's just absurd.

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.

It is your problem and not mine that that which you insist is possible can never be proven.

DeepSight:


I will pocket the red as the closest thing to a concession that I may hope for.

What is programmed is programmed. It is not necessary to program every outcome, once you have programmed the method by which the machine learns to arrive at new outcomes.

You skip the hard questions with general answers such as "I dont see why not" - can you get down to specifics as to how a machine may have an opinion for example - on morality or beauty?

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.

What about taste.

DeepSight:


You see, when you speak about being able to "compute that into the algorithms" you are objectively preprogramming a happening and there is nothing subjective about that. Ergo, it is not a subjective experience.
How this misses you guys is baffling.

We are talking about endocrinal fluctuations that might have nothing to do with the triggering events, that is not something you can easily code for. It's a whole other chain of causal links even you as a human have no control over nor can you predict with pinponit accuracy how much hormones are going to pour into your system and how it will cause you to respond. I am not sure such causal links can be coded. This is very different from pain which has to do with responding to singular events not a causal chain.

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.

Well that is a pity. A shame that time travel is not as yet possible.

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

I dont know how better to express this: this is simply not sufficient. You could ask me if its possible that there's a teapot circling the universe and I could just as easily answer "I dont see why not."

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.

Amigo - the methodology of further learning is still bequeathed by being programmed.

DeepSight:


I cant do anything with this. Its just wastefully circular. If a thing is unproven does that thereby show it to be possible? That's just absurd.



It is your problem and not mine that that which you insist is possible can never be proven.

Nice attempt to intentionally misunderstand what I said.
I never said something being unproven means it's possible. I said it doesn't mean it's impossible. This is just common sense.

In light of my concession that the point that prompted your last comment was a bad point, hypothetically, assuming that such a machine existed, consciousness would be proven. If a perfect mapping between the physical structure of the brain and the subconscious was somehow proven without a shadow of a doubt, then the mapping itself would be the proof.

DeepSight:


What about taste.

That is practically a database of chemicals so sure machine can "taste", they do that already.

LordReed:


We are talking about endocrinal fluctuations that might have nothing to do with the triggering events, that is not something you can easily code for. It's a whole other chain of causal links even you as a human have no control over nor can you predict with pinponit accuracy how much hormones are going to pour into your system and how it will cause you to respond. I am not sure such causal links can be coded.

Without knowing it you hit upon an important truth when you hint at the difficulty with coding such. For the complexity and nature of a living being could react in a plethora of unforeseen ways to stimuli. And this leads me to another point which I must also task Diridiri on - because a self conscious human is such a complex being that it is capable of absurdity. Is a robot capable of conscious absurdity?

A human can consciously decide to harm itself, commit suicide or take any number of self-destructive actions for reasons that may be absurd. It is also capable of altruistic actions such as sacrificing itself for another. Are robots capable of such. Mind you a robot can be programmed to self destruct, this is different from saying it could make an altruistic moral decision to sacrifice itself for another.

This is very different from pain which has to do with responding to singular events not a causal chain.

Come on, everything is in a causal chain.

LordReed:


That is practically a database of chemicals so sure machine can "taste", they do that already.

Why did you put taste in inverted commas?