From the other thread, the stance is simple. I find it far-fetched an idea that humans are self-aware, that they have 'feelings' or 'emotions' or 'perceptions' et cetera, it's not needed to make the model work, it only raises new quaestions, answers none. That's not to say that I think per se that they aren't, I just think that at this point it's an unnecessary and far-fetched dogma to make.

More extensive literature here [nihilarchitect.net], a must read for this thread.

what ? humans are not sentient beings now ?
we go from being gods special creatures at the center of the universe to nothing but self programming meat bags . woh ! what an ego dismantling

i know i am self aware . i am aware of my existence and my own mortality . i can think about the future and the past .
i cant prove this definetivly to you or anyone else . just like you cant prove it .

maybe you are just a self programming meat bag ,,, but i know im not

qqq
From the other thread, the stance is simple. I find it far-fetched an idea that humans are self-aware, that they have 'feelings' or 'emotions' or 'perceptions' et cetera, it's not needed to make the model work, it only raises new quaestions, answers none. That's not to say that I think per se that they aren't, I just think that at this point it's an unnecessary and far-fetched dogma to make.

More extensive literature here [nihilarchitect.net], a must read for this thread.

this one has humbly highlighted the flaw in your argument, kind sir.

also, nature tends to have a great deal of thing that are superfluous to make it work on the grounds it might come in handy. you would be shocked, shocked i say at the level of neural redundancy you brain has. it's how lobotomies work, after all.

lothar
what ? humans are not sentient beings now ?
we go from being gods special creatures at the center of the universe to nothing but self programming meat bags . woh ! what an ego dismantling

i know i am self aware . i am aware of my existence and my own mortality . i can think about the future and the past .
i cant prove this definetivly to you or anyone else . just like you cant prove it .

maybe you are just a self programming meat bag ,,, but i know im not

And that is why it's useless to consider scientifically.

You have a set objects that all claim to be 'self-aware' (what-ever that is), cannot prove that they are, no physical or biological model of sciences requires them to be self-aware to make it work, and above all, it challenges every physical concept there currently is that some thing could 'self-aware' (whatever that is).

So you can claim to know (different than 'to know') that you are self-aware or sentient or have emotions or feelings or what-not. But as the current model of physics and biology implies that you (and I) aren't and it provides no answer to any problem to just assume that we are. I find it a far-fetched assumption to assume that humans are self-aware, equally far fetched to assume this from a rock if it has 'I am self-aware' written on it.

lothar
what ? humans are not sentient beings now ?
we go from being gods special creatures at the center of the universe to nothing but self programming meat bags . woh ! what an ego dismantling

i know i am self aware . i am aware of my existence and my own mortality . i can think about the future and the past .
i cant prove this definetivly to you or anyone else . just like you cant prove it .

maybe you are just a self programming meat bag ,,, but i know im not

And that is why it's useless to consider scientifically.

You have a set objects that all claim to be 'self-aware' (what-ever that is), cannot prove that they are, no physical or biological model of sciences requires them to be self-aware to make it work, and above all, it challenges every physical concept there currently is that some thing could 'self-aware' (whatever that is).

So you can claim to know (different than 'to know') that you are self-aware or sentient or have emotions or feelings or what-not. But as the current model of physics and biology implies that you (and I) aren't and it provides no answer to any problem to just assume that we are. I find it a far-fetched assumption to assume that humans are self-aware, equally far fetched to assume this from a rock if it has 'I am self-aware' written on it.

Orin J Master

qqq
From the other thread, the stance is simple. I find it far-fetched an idea that humans are self-aware, that they have 'feelings' or 'emotions' or 'perceptions' et cetera, it's not needed to make the model work, it only raises new quaestions, answers none. That's not to say that I think per se that they aren't, I just think that at this point it's an unnecessary and far-fetched dogma to make.

More extensive literature here [nihilarchitect.net], a must read for this thread.

this one has humbly highlighted the flaw in your argument, kind sir.

also, nature tends to have a great deal of thing that are superfluous to make it work on the grounds it might come in handy. you would be shocked, shocked i say at the level of neural redundancy you brain has. it's how lobotomies work, after all.

Oh come one, you know it's perfectly possible for an advanced AI to type that exact post, that's not an argument.

I see your underlying statement as "Because we cannot scientifically quantify or define consciousness, it is better to assume that consciousness does not exist."

However, to do that, you have to first assume that consciousness is some magical spiritual state of being that is holier than an insect's state of being, or something. Basically, your first presumption is to elevate consciousness to a mythic/religious status. You are defeating your own purpose.

I tend to think that consciousness is simply a rung on the ladder. There's viral programming complexity, bacterial programming complexity, insect programming complexity, bla bla bla, all the way up to higher primate programming complexity. And, at that level of complexity, we nominate it as the status of 'consciousness.' It's not magical; it's simply a name given to this level of complexity.

mlai
I see your underlying statement as "Because we cannot scientifically quantify or define consciousness, it is better to assume that consciousness does not exist."

Then you see what I explicitly said there wasn't.

'That's not to say that I think per se that they aren't, I just think that at this point it's an unnecessary and far-fetched dogma to make.'

There's a big difference between not assuming some thing true and assuming that it's false. Not yet willing to assume one is guilty of a crime does not meaning assuming that person is innocent for instant.

However, most people do indeed seem to assume that humans are indeed conscious or self aware or have feelings or emotions.

However, to do that, you have to first assume that consciousness is some magical spiritual state of being that is holier than an insect's state of being, or something. Basically, your first presumption is to elevate consciousness to a mythic/religious status. You are defeating your own purpose.

No, to do that I don't have to do any thing.

The point about not making an axiom or dogma is that you by definition don't have do to any thing. And assuming some thing is false is to make an axiom too, and to assume that some thing is neither true or false is making an axiom too. And in doing either of that you need a definition of consciousness et cetera. Assuming you have your axioms about humans (I'm just making an illustration)

A: They are bipedal
B: They breath oxygn
C: They have fingers
D: They are conscious

Or replace D with 'They are not conscious' at your own discretion, either requires a definition of the concept of 'consciousness', my list is:

A: They are bipedal
B: They breath oxygn
C: They have fingers

And that's it. That doesn't imply that humans are conscious, or are not conscious. After all, it doesn't say that they have eyes either, does that imply that humans do not have eyes?

I simply find point D being pulled ex nihilo there is no indication from the perspective of a third observer that would research humans whatsoever that humans are 'self-aware' or have 'emotions'.

I tend to think that consciousness is simply a rung on the ladder. There's viral programming complexity, bacterial programming complexity, insect programming complexity, bla bla bla, all the way up to higher primate programming complexity. And, at that level of complexity, we nominate it as the status of 'consciousness.' It's not magical; it's simply a name given to this level of complexity.

Classically, consciousness implies that the 'entity', what ever it may be has some 'perception', has 'feelings' or 'emotions' and 'thought' rather than simply a complex machine that carries out instructions for the same reason that a rock falls, that sprockets turn if you hook them together and that electricity flows, because the laws of physics force it to.

I find it a rather far-fetched assumption to make at this point that humans have that property, indeed, that any thing in this universe has this property is at conflict with our understanding of physics as we have it today, and as it's not needed too to make the model work, it seems to me like a violation of Ockam's razor. Keep the model as simple as needed to explain the facts, where simplicity means less axioms.

Sure, you could explain that the moon revolves around the earth by invisible pink unicorns that are intangible and converse about tea parties holding it there because the earth and the moon are the only two objects in the universe to which the normal laws of gravity don't apply. But not adding these extra axioms to the current model:

- The normal laws of gravity don't apply to the moon and the earth, they do not perceive each other gravitonically.
- Instead, invisible beings hold the moon in place
- They do so in a way that exactly mimics its orbit would gravity apply to it
- They are intangible
- They are unicorns
- They are pink (and can be while invisible)
- They converse about tea parties while they do this


Keeps it a lot simpler. The same for adding these axioms to our current understanding of electrodynamics:

- When electrical charges flow in such a way that the result of their flowing provides answers to problems of survival, it enduces 'an entity' at some 'place' with a conception of 'self-awareness' and, correct or not, the idea of control over the results that this flow of charges provides
- The universe has some sort of innate concept of 'computation' and 'intelligence' to make possible the above
- The result of this process is exactly the same as if it would not take place


I find the model that no human is 'self-aware' more likely at this point, in fact, nothing in this universe is, and humans are just advanced computers that simply evolved to be under evolution via the principle of selfish genes and that their claim to sentience is just another survival advantage they have adopted via the moans of natural selection.

I mean, look at it via this illustration, say you have some basic AI that's able to teach itself to learn and reproduce and mutate to different computers, just a programming experiment, you talk to it on your computer and teach it things and you can send it to friends and it carries a genetic memory and 'mutates' each time you send it and learns, it speaks broken English in the beginning but because you talk back more if the English is correct (its criterion of natural selection) it shall simply start to speak better and better English.

Now, some people remove this program, but those that find it very amusing to talk to won't, at some point one of these instances of this program is going to appear very human-like and be nice to converse with, at one point it's going to say 'I think I'm starting to become self-aware', as a random thing.

Now, that'll result into an ethical debate? You can't just kill a self-aware program can you? So it won't be removed for the time being and all its clones also are going to say that and describe their thoughts even simply because they will not be deleted if they make such claims.

In the end, if you analyse the code of these programs the conclusion simply is that they claimed that out of natural selection, as those that didn't claim it simply got deleted, same thing for humans perhaps? If they claim to have feelings, other humans sooner take compassion for them, and then a vicious cycle starts.

qqq
Oh come one, you know it's perfectly possible for an advanced AI to type that exact post, that's not an argument.

would an AI have even perceived the counterpoint i provided? would it have posted this whole matter to begin with? an AI might type that post, but would it do so without prompting from external stimuli? the definition of Artificial intelligence is a bit different from what you seem to wish it to be.

so tell me, how does one remain aware without being self-aware?

Orin J Master

qqq
Oh come one, you know it's perfectly possible for an advanced AI to type that exact post, that's not an argument.

would an AI have even perceived the counterpoint i provided? would it have posted this whole matter to begin with? an AI might type that post, but would it do so without prompting from external stimuli? the definition of Artificial intelligence is a bit different from what you seem to wish it to be.

Yes, not an AI that humans can make at this point but it's perfectly possible theoretically.

That humans can't do it doesn't mean it's impossible, in fact, any one into AI knows that it's theoretically perfectly possible for an AI to pass the Turing test, it's just not some thing humans can make at this point.

Human's own intelligence however is accepted by biologists to have evolved by trial-and-error over billions of years. You except people to top that 80 years? But theoretically it's indeed quite possible for an AI to pass the Turing test.

so tell me, how does one remain aware without being self-aware?

Who says we are aware of any thing? If a stone falls on a glass and breaks it? Is it then aware of what it does or does it simply act that way because of the laws of physics.

Edit: In any case, your argument is irrelevant, it has been pointed out decades back and is commonly acceptable knowledge namely that that people report their conscious thought about 1/3-1/5 of a second later than that it's actually already computed in the brain:

http://www.blutner.de/philom/consc/consc.html [blutner.de]

There have been various tests, like hooking a test person up to some electrodes, and letting them watch images, if they get tired of them they have to press a button for the next image to show up.

But to their strange shock, every time when they are about to get tired the screen flips over to the next, or not and some researchers in the back of the room see a light burning in advance of when they are ready to make a move.

And there are tonnes of experiments which show that the brain is ahead of the conscious realization, the old model that the conscious realization steers and controls the body is outdated, it seems that the consciousness is as much a slave of the brain as the hand. All the things you 'think of' and 'feel' are actually already decided and computed in your brain what you are going to feel 1/3 seconds in advance.

edit, the most relevant part:

B Modern Neuroscience

On the journey. Unconsciously our brain has registered that we are tired. And unconsciously our brain registers this sign indicating a place to rest. from earlier experience our brain knows that we can rest there. And it gives a signal to our body to indicate and to brake. At the same time another bundle of neurons becomes active. Unconsciously it has checked the plan for our journey and has doubts whether we will arrive in time if we make a break. Our brain has to come to a decision. What's better, to stop or not to stop? Within milliseconds the brain decides to stop, and it gives order to register and to brake. All that happens unconscious. Only 200 milliseconds later this decision becomes conscious (and - being trained philosophers - we deeply become convinced that this was our free will)

I'm willing to take this a step further and say that humans don't feel any thing but are simply 1/3 after they have computed their course of action also computing to say that they feel it now, that doesn't mean that they actually feel it, they just said they did.

yes, because the act of contracting the muscles to press the button take absolutely no time. come on, how's that invalidate anything i said?

i think you need to consider your position a little harder there curly, your freudian slip is starting to show. at this rate this joke should be moved the the WTH files, because there's nothing serious about it.

Orin J Master
yes, because the act of contracting the muscles to press the button take absolutely no time. come on, how's that invalidate anything i said?

Read better, it says 'But to their strange shock, every time when they are about to get tired the screen flips over to the next'

Where did I start about buttons? And as I said, there have been countless experiments they all indicate the same, consciousness is not in control, it is controlled.

Also, did you actually read my source? I doubt it, the mainstream neuroscientific consensus at this point is that our feelings and decisions are computed about 300 ms before we experience them, the conscious mind controls nothing it is controlled.

I think you need to consider your position a little harder there curly, your freudian slip is starting to show. at this rate this joke should be moved the the WTH files, because there's nothing serious about it.

I think you need to read sources that are posted or at least reply to all points if you make a reply and not just pick out a single point you misread.

But if say I'm about to put my leg up as I'm reading your post, as is my habit, but after reading your post I decide "I'll show him my consciousness is in control, I won't put my leg up even though I had wanted to!" What then? What quirk of evolution had made it possible for my consciousness to override my subconscious/habitual desire?

And if you say "your unconscious brain had decided not to put your leg up," then my question would be: What possible evolutionary advantage could there be, for my subconscious to contradict itself, just to convince itself that something nonexistent, exists? Don't I need to be self-aware, in order to desire to convince myself that I am self-aware? If I am not self-aware, then I shouldn't care.

mlai
But if say I'm about to put my leg up as I'm reading your post, as is my habit, but after reading your post I decide "I'll show him my consciousness is in control, I won't put my leg up even though I had wanted to!" What then? What quirk of evolution had made it possible for my consciousness to override my subconscious/habitual desire?

Look, maybe you should read the the paper I linked. It doesn't speak of 'subconscious' and I never did. The article (and mainstream neuroscience at this point) claim this one simple sentence:

Every conscious though, feeling, emotion, perception you claim to have is decided you shall have it 200-300 milliseconds before you have it by neuron activity in your brain.

Or simply put:

1: Your neurons fire in a way indicating happiness et cetera in humans
2: 200 milliseconds wait.
3: You feel happy.

And it's like that with every thought you have, including putting that leg down or up.

That's it. If you have a consciousness, your conscious ideas are computed via the flow of electrical binary signals (fire / non fire) in advance before you have it, same as your feelings and every thing.

And if you say "your unconscious brain had decided not to put your leg up," then my question would be: What possible evolutionary advantage could there be, for my subconscious to contradict itself, just to convince itself that something nonexistent, exists? Don't I need to be self-aware, in order to desire to convince myself that I am self-aware? If I am not self-aware, then I shouldn't care.

Again, we have no proof or even indication at this point that you or I convince ourselves that we are self aware and experience feelings. We have proof that we claim we experience them.

And the same shall happen as in that thought experiment of the chat bot, after a while it shall claim to be self-aware via natural selection because the variants that didn't claim it got deleted sooner.

qqq
And the same shall happen as in that thought experiment of the chat bot, after a while it shall claim to be self-aware via natural selection because the variants that didn't claim it got deleted sooner.

personally, i like lemons. they're a nice yellow color, and you get a lot of vitamin C from them. even when they're not ripe, they've for that neat yellowy-green tint to them, and they go great with pies. i usually put some lemon juice in my water when i have the opportunity. really, i don't think there's anyone that hates lemons.

i've hijacked your thread. it's about lemons now. comply, automaton.

Okay kids, let me explain to you the most basic thing of a circular reasoning:

To argue that you are conscious or have feelings, you may not use that as a given in your reasoning.

Amazing, isn't it? It's sort of candy because as x -> x for any x it sort of flows you could prove any random thing if you could just assume in your argument that it was true.

qqq
Okay kids, let me explain to you the most basic thing of a circular reasoning:

To argue that you are conscious or have feelings, you may not use that as a given in your reasoning.

Amazing, isn't it? It's sort of candy because as x -> x for any x it sort of flows you could prove any random thing if you could just assume in your argument that it was true.

an AI doesn't have reasoning by default. it has logarithms. acknowledging that you're a reasoning being is conceding you're sentient. now get your damn nonsense out of my lemon thread!

This is a serious thread about Lemons, and how great they are! your AI WTHellery has no place here!

Orin J Master

qqq
Okay kids, let me explain to you the most basic thing of a circular reasoning:

To argue that you are conscious or have feelings, you may not use that as a given in your reasoning.

Amazing, isn't it? It's sort of candy because as x -> x for any x it sort of flows you could prove any random thing if you could just assume in your argument that it was true.

an AI doesn't have reasoning by default. it has logarithms. acknowledging that you're a reasoning being is conceding you're sentient. now get your damn nonsense out of my lemon thread!

This is a serious thread about Lemons, and how great they are! your AI WTHellery has no place here!

1: I think you mean 'algorithm'.

2: Have you ever seen a baby reason? Do you really think it comes to people by default? Nope, the accepted neurological theory is that babies at random make nerve connexions and just keep those that are used often, that is, those that serve a function, and that ability goes away after a certain age. That's why adults keep an accent, children absorb the moral and culture around them but adults don't et cetera.

In fact, it goes even further, the things you might find extreme basic people can't do if they never needed it as a child. There is a language called pirahã [en.wikipedia.org] that has no concept of counting as we know it, it has a word for 'one' a word for 'a little' (about 2-3) and a word for 'much' (all that's above) and the thing is that speakers of this language cannot be taught to see the difference between 7 stones and 37 stones, or do basic things like add 2+3. They never learnt the concept of numbers as a child and adults can't learn such things.

Your idea that humans have reasoning by default is quite simply an absurd assertion that goes against current accepted neurology. Humans have reasoning by trial and error just like Google translate and Akinator. Babies try out random things and if it doesn't work they drop it and if it does work they keep it. The human nervous system is in AI terms a textbook example of a self-learning swarm intelligence.


It's long been accepted science, artificial intelligence and philosophy that there is no real difference between a human's reasoning and that of a machine, in fact, the computer started as a thought experiment on this by Alan Turing, most philosophers interpret this as that machines are as sentient as humans if they can 'mimic' human behaviour, I choose to believe that people and machines are as sterile as a rock no matter how complex the processing becomes.

qqq
It's long been accepted science, artificial intelligence and philosophy that there is no real difference between a human's reasoning and that of a machine, in fact, the computer started as a thought experiment on this by Alan Turing, most philosophers interpret this as that machines are as sentient as humans if they can 'mimic' human behaviour, I choose to believe that people and machines are as sterile as a rock no matter how complex the processing becomes.

that's....all lies. not even good lies, too. that's...


i'm going to go enjoy a lemon soda. you've given me a migraine from trying to figure out where you interpreted this nonsense.


maybe you aren't sentient. pit knows there've been exceptions to any rule.

The thing is, if we go by what qqq is saying... well, it makes no difference whether humans are sentient or not. Just as it makes no difference whether there is an uncaring neutral God out there in the 10th Dimension.

He's saying "we can't prove sentience, therefore we shouldn't assume sentience in humans." Okay... so... what...?

mlai
The thing is, if we go by what qqq is saying... well, it makes no difference whether humans are sentient or not. Just as it makes no difference whether there is an uncaring neutral God out there in the 10th Dimension.

He's saying "we can't prove sentience, therefore we shouldn't assume sentience in humans." Okay... so... what...?

so they started a thread stating they didn't think there's sentience, and copped the mormon defense with anyone that disagrees with them.

attention whoring at it's finest. someone move this to WTH, it has no place in a serious discussion.

also, did you know there's both lemon and lemon creme pies? what can't that citrus do?

This thread has a place here. It's tricky because qqq tends to prescribe to a belief in a robotic model of human thought that's very much at odds with the rest of the population (common and intellectual) everywhere. So he's going to find it a tough proposition to put forward.

That also means that the onus is on HIM to make his proposition convincing, not on us to attempt to refute it. That will be tough, since even the blog post he linked to wasn't at all convincing. It seems to rely on taking theories of physics and evolution entirely out of context...

mlai
The thing is, if we go by what qqq is saying... well, it makes no difference whether humans are sentient or not. Just as it makes no difference whether there is an uncaring neutral God out there in the 10th Dimension.

He's saying "we can't prove sentience, therefore we shouldn't assume sentience in humans." Okay... so... what...?

That's pretty much the idea.

Most people seem to assume as a dogma ex nihilo that humans or any thing in this universe is self-aware and then try to find a rationality how that can possibly coincide with the laws of physics. The simpler matter is to simply not make such an unnecessary assumption in the first place.

qqq
Most people seem to assume as a dogma ex nihilo that humans or any thing in this universe is self-aware and then try to find a rationality how that can possibly coincide with the laws of physics.

First of all if people are making an assumption that they were self-aware, and then try to coincide it with the laws of physics then they would in fact be self-aware. 1)They're making a judgment regarding the self (RE: their self-awareness) which by it's own definition attributes to them the characteristic of awarness. 2)They're trying to rationalize this characteristic with the external world thus recognizing a distinction between the self and the not-self.

Secondly, your assumption that in regards to what "most people" think is 1)False, 2)Unsubstantiated and 3)Generalization

1)Nobody tries to coincide their self-awareness with physics, that's retarded
2)Even if they did there's no way you could prove they did because your own argument makes them unreliable.
3)You can't just lump everyone together and say "good enough." The very nature of language and perception means that no one is thinking exactly the same thing as anyone else.

You prove sentience in humans vis-a-vi your own internal examination of the concept. Done.

kingofsnake

qqq
Most people seem to assume as a dogma ex nihilo that humans or any thing in this universe is self-aware and then try to find a rationality how that can possibly coincide with the laws of physics.

First of all if people are making an assumption that they were self-aware, and then try to coincide it with the laws of physics then they would in fact be self-aware. 1)They're making a judgment regarding the self (RE: their self-awareness) which by it's own definition attributes to them the characteristic of awarness. 2)They're trying to rationalize this characteristic with the external world thus recognizing a distinction between the self and the not-self.

No? That they are observed actively doing that is no guarantee at all that they are self aware. If you find a piece of paper that says:

1: I (this piece of paper) am self aware.
2: :long discourse on that paper written that tries to explain from a first person perspective how it can possibly be self aware:

Does that make that paper self-aware?

I think you, and the rest of this thread, really have to understand the fundamental differences between A: Claiming to be self-aware and B: Being self-aware.

A can be verified, tested and observed, B cannot. A lot of people seem to take as a dogma (circular reasoning) that B applies for humans rather only A applies and if that leads to B is yet to be seen as an automaton can easily claim to be self aware while not being it, and automaton can also discuss its own supposed 'introspection' via its programming without having it as it was simply programmed, sophisticatedly, to do so.

Secondly, your assumption that in regards to what "most people" think is 1)False, 2)Unsubstantiated and 3)Generalization

1)Nobody tries to coincide their self-awareness with physics, that's retarded
2)Even if they did there's no way you could prove they did because your own argument makes them unreliable.
3)You can't just lump everyone together and say "good enough." The very nature of language and perception means that no one is thinking exactly the same thing as anyone else.

You prove sentience in humans vis-a-vi your own internal examination of the concept. Done.

1: Richard Dawkins, Plato, Discartes to name a few.

2: They 'could' prove it perhaps in the future, but today the laws of physics offer no explanation for it.

3: I am only talking about those that do, then again.

(4): You can't 'prove' any thing via your own internal examination, that's the point, it has to be verifiable to others were you able to prove a thing. If I hear God from the inside talking to me, is that a proof He exists? Even if multiples did so it still isn't a proof.

And it's exactly the fault people in this thread are making, whether or not you can feel inside that you are self aware or not, you can't proof it. If you are self are or sophisticated automatons with adaptive hardware and sophisticated programming, in the end the end result is the same outwardly, and only the outward can be observed. And since the version of the automaton fits a lot better in the current model of physics than the mystical version of that people have these unexplained, vague and undefined concept of 'feelings' and 'though' and 'introspection', I find the automaton version to be a lot more scientifically plausible at this point.

You're not understanding. This has nothing to do with claiming to be self-aware. Your argument is self defeating. Your own examination of whether or not your self-aware predicates the necessity of consciousness via it's own definition. If you spend ANY time questioning whether you are self-aware then you are in fact self-aware.

I can say for sure that I'm self aware because I examine the concept of consciousness.

This means nothing to you.

But it establishes the statement: Anyone who examines the concept of consciousness must be (quid-pro-quo) self aware

Question 1:
Do you examine the concept of consciousness?

If Yes then you're self aware

If No then your words are randomly chosen in a way to form a cogent yet intrinsically flawed argument against sentience, and I am wasting my time, because I am debating with a random word generator that is improbably on topic.

--
Either way, none of this affects me. I've already established internally that I'm self-aware because I answered yes to this question. Philosophically I could give a shit proving whether or not anyone else but me is self-aware. (Although if I'm self aware and humans are like me, there's no reason to assume that I'm the only one who's self aware.)

Oh, and your "piece of paper" argument is false. The piece of paper isn't aware. Whoever wrote that on it is. Or, it's a randomly generated series of words, in which case I'm again surprised that all the words seem to conform to a specific topic. That's amazing. And it randomly conforms to the context of the English language! MORE AMAZING....

OH! OR MAYBE THE PIECE OF PAPER FORMED THE WORDS ON IT ALL BY ITSELF! Like suddenly they just appeared on the paper, like magic! If that was the case then, yes, I'd say the paper is self-aware! Although I suppose first I'd have to rule out that someone was playing an amazing practical joke on me.

Dictionary.com
self-a·ware (sělf'ə-wâr')
adj. Aware of oneself, including one's traits, feelings, and behaviors.

I can look in a mirror. I know that is me and not someone else.

I can see that I have hair, need to lose a few pounds, and am wearing clothing.

I can tell that I am feeling tired and bored.

I am aware that I am posting on an internet forum.



By an accepted definition, I am self-aware.

kingofsnake
You're not understanding. This has nothing to do with claiming to be self-aware. Your argument is self defeating. Your own examination of whether or not your self-aware predicates the necessity of consciousness via it's own definition. If you spend ANY time questioning whether you are self-aware then you are in fact self-aware.

Indeed, but can I prove that I truly quaestion if I'm self aware? Perhaps I'm just an automaton that claims to quaestion it by its own programming but in reality on the inside does no such thing. But is just programmed to outwardly display the behaviour.

I can say for sure that I'm self aware because I examine the concept of consciousness.

You can say for yourself. From my perspective or that of a third observer. All that is known is that you claim to examine it. But that could also be explained by that you're just a programmed automaton that's simply programmed to say these things.

This means nothing to you.

But it establishes the statement: Anyone who examines the concept of consciousness must be (quid-pro-quo) self aware

Indeed, that is true, but that you or I... humans in general examine this is yet to be seen. For all an outsider knows we could just be cold automatons sans any thing resembling a conscious introspection but just claim to have so due to our programming.

Question 1:
Do you examine the concept of consciousness?

If Yes then you're self aware

If No then your words are randomly chosen in a way to form a cogent yet intrinsically flawed argument against sentience, and I am wasting my time, because I am debating with a random word generator that is improbably on topic.

Assuming I say 'yes', how can you verify it is true? That I say yes is no guarantee that it is yes. Likewise in reverse if I ask you.

So, I'm going to say 'yes' to that quaestion. Just like you would in return, and that does not imply that I actually do examine it, I just claim that I examine it.

Either way, none of this affects me. I've already established internally that I'm self-aware because I answered yes to this question. Philosophically I could give a shit proving whether or not anyone else but me is self-aware. (Although if I'm self aware and humans are like me, there's no reason to assume that I'm the only one who's self aware.)

Assuming that what you say here is true (which is to be seen of course), it still has nothing on science, the point about science is that any one need to be able to verify it. Which they cannot, thus, or all others know, it could be false.

Oh, and your "piece of paper" argument is false. The piece of paper isn't aware. Whoever wrote that on it is. Or, it's a randomly generated series of words, in which case I'm again surprised that all the words seem to conform to a specific topic. That's amazing. And it randomly conforms to the context of the English language! MORE AMAZING....

That's a circular reasoning, we're debating if humans are aware and you use it as a given.

You could also just extend this proposition by saying that humans aren't self aware but whatever programmed them is. And the piece of paper is a very simple programming that just consists of:

1: Print <<< 'I am self aware.'

In humans this is far more complex as in some thing like:

1: If(self/asked('are you self aware?' ) then say <<< 'Indeed I am.'

And so forth, but far more complex.

OH! OR MAYBE THE PIECE OF PAPER FORMED THE WORDS ON IT ALL BY ITSELF! Like suddenly they just appeared on the paper, like magic! If that was the case then, yes, I'd say the paper is self-aware! Although I suppose first I'd have to rule out that someone was playing an amazing practical joke on me.

Do you think humans just say things on their own?

You realize that the human central nervous system is a physical object right and all the things we say and do, all our actions and behaviours are computer via the physical flow of electricity in our neurons right? Just like in a computer.

At least, that's the current scientific model of it. And the amazing thing is it can be manipulated, you can hook up electrons to people's brain and induce a charge and they'll stretch their arm out. But that's not the least, the most is is that afterwards they claimed it wasn't involuntarily, they said they really wanted to stretch their arm out just like normally. And if you tell them to suppress it it next time, they can't, they'll keep wanting to stretch their arm out because you simply put a charge on those neurons.

Currently, scientifically the model is that the conscious mind, if it exists is a slave to the corporal body and not the reverse. If people have an introspection then it is computed via physical laws of flow of electricity in the nervous system and it thus can be manipulated by manipulating that flow.

qqq
Indeed, but can I prove that I truly quaestion if I'm self aware? Perhaps I'm just an automaton that claims to quaestion it by its own programming but in reality on the inside does no such thing. But is just programmed to outwardly display the behaviour.

The argument that you were preprogrammed to question your own awareness is silly and nonsensical as that is not how animals work. There is no evolutionary advantage to being angsty or questioning your own existence.

You were preprogrammed to eat, sleep, reproduce, and then die.

You're doing more than that, thus you are in fact proving that human beings are self-aware by your very attempt to question if they are.



Edit: Also the whole "Well, the paper SAYS it is sentient, sort of like how people do..." thing is rather dubious. Pretending it is alive for the sake of argument, the paper has no way to outwardly sense or detect what is going on in the world outside of its own head, and with no real way to experience anything other than itself, it surely would not be able to grow in intelligence enough to ever approach sentience.

Bad argument is bad.

also, lemons were a useful source of vitamin C for sailors.

You're still confusing the issue.

You can prove to yourself that you are self aware. Therefore you are conscious

It doesn't matter if anyone else is self aware or if anyone else can tell if you're self-aware.

Point 1: Scientist A can observe that Scientist A is self-aware.
Point 2: Scientist B can observe that Scientist B is self-aware.
Point 3: Scientist A can not observe that Scientist B is self aware.

You're trying to say that because of Point 3, Point 1 and Point 2 are invalid. But Point 1 and Point 2 are autonomous to Point 3. They're unrelated. It is unnecessary for a third party to observe self-awareness in Scientist B for Scientist B to be self-aware.

I'm done debating this. It's clear you will not relinquish debate regardless of how self-defeating and illogical your argument is and how logical the position against your argument is. You're just stating the same case over and over and doing nothing to refute any of the opposing arguments.