Re: AI versus Human Consciousness

From: Anthony Cerrato (tcerrato_at_optonline.net)
Date: 01/07/05 

Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 23:08:30 -0500

"Raan" <RaanOne@One.org> wrote in message
news:OcmDd.29166$7n1.1078341@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> "Anthony Cerrato" <tcerrato@optonline.net> wrote in
message
> news:P0lDd.223$J%5.178@fe12.lga...
> >
> > "Raan" <RaanOne@One.org> wrote in message
> > news:RANCd.9755$7n1.704886@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > >
> > > "Anthony Cerrato" <tcerrato@optonline.net> wrote in
> > message
> > > news:sFLCd.8445$go5.1706@fe12.lga...
> > > >
> > > > "Raan" <RaanOne@One.org> wrote in message
> > > > news:wUaCd.3746$7n1.177263@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Albert" <albertwagner@cox.net> wrote in message
> > > > > news:8EVAd.16111$ql2.4796@okepread04...
> > > > > > Raan wrote:

[snippage]

> > > > I agree. But there is a problem with the application
of
> > > > science to the hard problem of consciousness--a
> > meaningful
> > > > qualitative explanation of qualia as a universal
> > phenomena.
> > > > This is because the "feeling of red" and like things
is
> > > > relative to each individual mind/brain--relative
> > "feelings"
> > > > can never be compared between two brains by the
> > scientific
> > > > method. Experiments cannot be repeated for one
thing.
> > Also,
> > > > no observer can observe oneself and certainly cannot
> > compare
> > > > such feelings to those of another brain. While the
> > physical
> > > > processes that lead to such qualia can be
investigated
> > and
> > > > cataloged for comparison, this will never tell us
> > exactly
> > > > what the "feelings" are that they create in that
other
> > > > brain. We need to be satisfied with a reasonably
> > complete
> > > > catalog of the physical subprocesses (memory,
> > biochemistry,
> > > > and neural organization) that create those
"feelings."
> > This
> > > > is quite
> > > > enough to define them to the extent possible.
> > > > ...tonyC
> > >
> > > And just what is the feeling of red anyway? Can you
> > isolate it?
> >
> > No, that's why it is a hard problem.
> >
> > > Is it
> > > something you can observe apart from the perception of
> > red? Is it in fact
> > > in any way an observation? Or could it rather be an
> > intention?
> >
> > It is not an observation in my sense of the use of a
word--I
> > take observation as a result accruing from one of the 6
> > known (traditional) physical senses. Maybe "[physical]
> > perception" would be a more general term. If you mean to
> > count any specific , or even general, process involved
in
> > the activity of the brain as an "observation," then all
bets
> > are off and anything would count. I don't know how the
word
> > intention would possibly apply to an observation in the
> > scientific sense. Maybe just calling it the general
sense of
> > things like the "feeling of red" is better.
> >
> > >The very
> > > concept of qualia is ill defined at best. See my
other
> > post about the
> > > limitations of science and the true nature of the hard
> > problem in this
> > > thread.
> >
> > I'm not sure if I remember your other post, but I
certainly
> > agree that qualia is, indeed, ill-defined. I only use it
> > because it is a convenient code and is widely used in
the
> > literature, probably since, although not well-defined
people
> > still know what it means more or less.
> >
> > That's the whole point, or at least part of it, in my
saying
> > that " 'feelings' can never be compared between two
brains
> > by the scientific method." Science is indeed limited in
this
> > area.
> > Cheers, ...tonyC
> >
>
> Points all well taken.
> I meant to suggest that it is volition that is primary in
the understanding
> of consciousness and not any kind of sensation of a
feeling of red.

OK, let's consider volition--which as I take you to mean,
the putative thing which is more commonly called, "free
will/action". I believe free will/action (FW) is a total
misnomer; FW is merely an artifact of the functioning
brain--it is, in essence, an illusion. That is only an
opinion, and in fact there is no way to prove, using
science, that FW conclusively exists. (Of course, like
qualia, it can not even be well-defined.) We can only use
science, with reasoning, to support different theories which
might suggest the truth. Truth, will however, always remain
just a matter of opinion.

> Too
> many analyses make of the brain a passive receptor even
those that admit of
> dynamical processes within perception. To my way of
thinking the brain is
> driven by urge and desire and will, not some passive
response to stimulus.

But it is not at all, passive. It is only passive with
respect to the illusory artifact called FW. I propose that
responses are the result of a very complex dynamic process,
which involves the brain's optimization of responses
consistent with the survival traits inhereted through
evolution, and the experiences and events of one's lifetime
as mediated by memories, sensory perceptions, emotions (and
one's memories of them.) BTW, this is no less "noble" that
what is generally thought to be to be true FW; in fact there
is no operational difference between them.

> What has science to say about the nature of volition that
does not fall into
> an etiology instead of a teleology?

And what's wrong with that?

>After all the latter is only now being
> considered as valid theory.

No true science or scientist ever deals with
teleology--purpose in never spoken of except insofar as it
pertains to causality.

>The quantum notion of reverse causality is
> getting more and more attention. I do not suggest some
pseudoscientific
> idea incorporating buzz words catch phrases and
double-talk.
> Any thoughts on the subject?

Sounds like you are saying scientific reductionism is a
false doctrine--what exactly are you saying? Yes, there are
thys of quantum mechanics (QM) which utilize degrees of
"reverse causality," although I wouldn't call it that
exactly. The Transactional Interpretation (TI) of QM
proposes backwards-in- time-communication of waves for ex.
but I don't understand your implication though--so what?
Causality still rules in the macro- universe as far as we
know. Cheers, ...tonyC

> --
> ></>
>
>

Relevant Pages
Quantcast