kingofsnake
Point 3: Scientist A can not observe that Scientist B is self aware.

Actually, going on the standard definition, yes, they can.

Scientist A merely needs to drop a mirror into the room with Scientist B, observe if he can tell the reflection is himself. When he does, it becomes obvious Scientist B is aware of his own existence.

Scientist B can then be made to make a list of his own traits and behaviors.

B's feelings can be ascertained by merely talking to them.

kingofsnake
You're still confusing the issue.

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

True, if you can prove to yourself that you are self aware then you are conscious.

However, the above is not a fact, it's the very thing that I quaestion here, it's a fact that people claim they can prove it to themselves. Not that they actually also do it. You keep making this fallacy, you take it for granted that I, or you, or all humans evaluate their own consciousness as we speak, that's the very thing I am quaestioning here. Do they really have introspection or do they just outwardly appear to have, and that's a thing that's currently not able to be answered.

Maybe it's true that A can observe that A is self aware, I don't know. All I and you know is that both A and B claim to observe this. That's the part you keep missing, it's not a certainty that any one here evaluates their own consciousness and observes to be self aware. Only that they claim they do such things.

You're right of course Rich. I was granting the premise to the argument in the first place. I probably shouldn't me.

Simply put if I draw a picture of you and then you look at it and say "that's me" and then I draw a picture of a toaster and you look at it and say "that's not me" then you're self aware. It's pretty easily observable.

qqq
it's not a certainty that any one here evaluates their own consciousness and observes to be self aware. Only that they claim they do such things.

So because you can't observe what goes on in their head, you do not know for certain they are truly self-aware? Is that what you are trying to say?

Rich

qqq
it's not a certainty that any one here evaluates their own consciousness and observes to be self aware. Only that they claim they do such things.

So because you can't observe what goes on in their head, you do not know for certain they are truly self-aware? Is that what you are trying to say?

Yes, that is exactly what I'm trying to say.

Likewise the reverse, they of me.

For sake of argument, assuming that I am self aware (which I claim to be), all that I know is that I am self-aware, others perhaps aren't.

Now, for sake of argument assume that no humans are self-aware and we just debate this like sophisticated automatons, wouldn't the debate be exactly the same if our programming was sophisticated enough? Wouldn't our entire lives be exactly the same from the outside?

The point is that outsiders don't notice any difference in if we are self-aware or not. And seeing that saying that we are self-aware makes the issue a lot more complex to fit into the laws of physics and biology than saying that we are not. And outsider would probably conclude that we are not self-aware.

qqq
Now, for sake of argument assume that no humans are self-aware and we just debate this like sophisticated automatons, wouldn't the debate be exactly the same if our programming was sophisticated enough? Wouldn't our entire lives be exactly the same from the outside?

Unfortunately you seem to ignore the basic logic that there is no evolutionary benefit to come from questioning your own existence. Animals do not work that way.


Now assuming that they were programmed by an outside force, that outside force would surely have to be self aware to script this debate, and even then that would require it to give the automatons some degree of self-awareness in order to be able to compensate for unexpected intrusions from a possible 3rd party.

Someone
And seeing that saying that we are self-aware makes the issue a lot more complex to fit into the laws of physics and biology than saying that we are not.

Physics has very little place inside a debate such as this. Biology? Yes. There is a clear biological advantage to a creature who has evolved to the point of sentience. Do note how we are the smartest creatures on the planet and we alone have dominated it.

Rich

qqq
Now, for sake of argument assume that no humans are self-aware and we just debate this like sophisticated automatons, wouldn't the debate be exactly the same if our programming was sophisticated enough? Wouldn't our entire lives be exactly the same from the outside?

Unfortunately you seem to ignore the basic logic that there is no evolutionary benefit to come from questioning your own existence. Animals do not work that way.

Neither is there an evolutionary benefit from a species that goes building nuclear bombs and drop them on each other, but that happens too?

Species die out you know because they start displaying things that have no evolutionary benefit a lot. Very few species are evolutionary perfect actually, they all have traits that pretty much work against survival, they can get ill, some just jump of a cliff, they kill each other et cetera.

The point is that evolution is not a process of design, it's the idea that in the competition for the available food (energy) only the best survive, but the best are by no means perfect. The enlarged cerebral cortex and tongue bone in humans gave them the ability to reason and communicate that reasoning, it provided for them a skill in toolcrafting, it also enabled them in the end to make weapons whose power they couldn't responsibly handle, and it made them so able to suppress their instincts that some actively practice birth control, commit suicide and indeed quaestion the use of their own instinct.

Evolution is not about perfection, far from it.

Now assuming that they were programmed by an outside force, that outside force would surely have to be self aware to script this debate, and even then that would require it to give the automatons some degree of self-awareness in order to be able to compensate for unexpected intrusions from a possible 3rd party.

No, not programmed by an outside force, programmed by trial and error. (evolution)

It's in AI called a 'self-learning system', the idea is very simple, you have a programming that just tries out random things, if they work it keeps trying them and variations thereon, if they don't work it stops doing it. This is how human cognition evolves, both genetically and in babies.

The idea is that babies for instance at fast pace made completely random neural connexions in their brain, but the neural connexions that are used a lot, that seem to have a purpose stay, and the others die out. It's a self learning system, it tries out random things and keeps what works.

Physics has very little place inside a debate such as this. Biology? Yes. There is a clear biological advantage to a creature who has evolved to the point of sentience. Do note how we are the smartest creatures on the planet and we alone have dominated it.

Physics has all the more place in it than biology, the point is that physics at this point provides no explanation whatsoever how any thing in this universe possibly could be self-aware. In the current physical model, humans, or any thing for that matter 'shouldn't be self-aware it's some thing that physics can't explain. Accordingly physics, humans should indeed be soulless automatons that just execute sophisticated instructions via the wiring of their nerves, they get in input via their senses, process it and deliver output via motion et cetera.

This is also the biophysical model of the human brain.

How exactly does responding to one's environment in a predictable manner disprove that one is aware of what they are doing?

Rich
How exactly does responding to one's environment in a predictable manner disprove that one is aware of what they are doing?

It doesn't, as I said, I don't attempt to prove that we are not self-aware.

But I find that we are self-aware not proven at this point either. Saying that you aren't convinced some thing is true doesn't mean that you think it's false as I said in the first post.

But people fit the definition for self-aware. If something fits the definition, then how is it not self-aware?

Yes, you can argue that people might be preprogrammed and all, but if we modify their traits and appearance without them knowing and drop them in front of a mirror, they'll almost instantly realize that it is them.

If said programming is so dynamic and flexible, then surely it is in fact sentient.

Rich
But people fit the definition for self-aware. If something fits the definition, then how is it not self-aware?

That's another thing 'self-awareness' at this point is infamously difficult to define.

All these things like 'sentient', 'conscious', 'self-aware' are infamously hard to define and many philosophers wrestle the issue as at this point a good definition has yet to be found.

Yes, you can argue that people might be preprogrammed and all, but if we modify their traits and appearance without them knowing and drop them in front of a mirror, they'll almost instantly realize that it is them.

If said programming is so dynamic and flexible, then surely it is in fact sentient.

Well, this has two issues:

1: Who says it is 'them'? Maybe their consciousness resides at a vastly other place and in fact their body is remote controlled, as their senses are also with their body? How would the soul that resides at another place know it in fact only remote controls some thing?

2: A computer in this day and age is very much able already to scan a picture and recognise a picture of a computer in it. It's how google's safe mode image search works, a computer scans the picture to see if it contains nudity. A computer can also already scan pictures to see if it contains computers.

qqq
1: Who says it is 'them'? Maybe their consciousness resides at a vastly other place and in fact their body is remote controlled, as their senses are also with their body? How would the soul that resides at another place know it in fact only remote controls some thing?

This is indescribably dumb and I'm not even going to dignify it with a thought out response.

2: A computer in this day and age is very much able already to scan a picture and recognise a picture of a computer in it. It's how google's safe mode image search works, a computer scans the picture to see if it contains nudity. A computer can also already scan pictures to see if it contains computers.

I'm awfully sure the safe mode image search works based on the URL of the site hosting the image and not the image itself. However I could be wrong, and I'd like you to link me to information confirming that is how it works.

Someone
That's another thing 'self-awareness' at this point is infamously difficult to define.

Not as difficult as you'd think.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/self-aware

Rich

qqq
1: Who says it is 'them'? Maybe their consciousness resides at a vastly other place and in fact their body is remote controlled, as their senses are also with their body? How would the soul that resides at another place know it in fact only remote controls some thing?

This is indescribably dumb and I'm not even going to dignify it with a thought out response.

Try it, welcome to philosophy baby, these kind of quaestions are raised all the time here. Ever heard of the brain in the vat?

2: A computer in this day and age is very much able already to scan a picture and recognise a picture of a computer in it. It's how google's safe mode image search works, a computer scans the picture to see if it contains nudity. A computer can also already scan pictures to see if it contains computers.

I'm awfully sure the safe mode image search works based on the URL of the site hosting the image and not the image itself. However I could be wrong, and I'd like you to link me to information confirming that is how it works.

Not at the moment I think.

Someone
That's another thing 'self-awareness' at this point is infamously difficult to define.

Not as difficult as you'd think.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/self-aware

You realize that definition is circular right?

I said a good definition, defining 'self aware' as 'being aware of oneself' is a grammatical extrapolation at best. You're still no step further what does 'being are of oneself' mean, what does 'being aware' mean in this context, what does it mean to be it of 'oneself', how can it be tested. You're using a dictionary in an academic debate, I'm more searching for praecision like this:



Russell is da man of course, didn't accept a thing without proving it, not even that 1+1=2 without a proof from the axioms.

So the only answer you will accept is some sort of elaborate mathematical explanation of sentience?

Rich
So the only answer you will accept is some sort of elaborate mathematical explanation of sentience?

no, they won't accept any answer at this point. it's pretty clear that they're just trying to fillabuster, hoping that if they denounce any argument against their supposed point they somehow "win" the concession.

in reality, they're a dip trying to shout over anyone disagreeing with them to prove they're the only one worth listening to. they've devolved into some rather absurd logical fallicies at this point to keep from admitting they've got no argument.

ironically, the fact they're doing that proves in and of itself that they're self aware, since it means they're aware they don't want to be proven wrong, and an AI would concede immediately.

personally, i think they need to enjoy a nice glass of lemonaide and think over what they're trying to prove here.

Lemonade WOULD be nice right about now.

Hey, it's better than the "animal rights" activist who tried to argue that sex with animals should be legal as a supposed way to prove a point about how we shouldn't eat meat.
Anyone remember that debate here? :)

This one is good in that qqq has made a post that's not all about how religion is evil or war is bad or evolution is false or President Bush 2 was a psychopath or some such. It's an unpopular position but at least, but it's something new. Eh?
---------------

His proposition about the non-provability of self awareness brings to mind two things to me:

1. The idea of some people that the world is really rather "matrix-like". That's an idea MUCH, much older than those Matrix movies but they've defined the constructed world idea in the popular conciousness. The cleverer, more advanced version of the idea is that no one and nothing is truly real, but we're in fact all complex constructions thought up by something else... Or even that nothing is real except you yourself and all else is really a dream.
A lot of that goes back solidly to religious foundation of various kinds (Christian, Hindu, Buddhist... etc.). The thing is that you can have a hypothesis like that because you can't prove it's not true.

2. A justification for human slavery, animal abuse, animal experiments, and justifications used by psychopaths. The thinking regarding the sentience of animals has been starting to turn around quite a bit in the other direction though in the past few decades. Initially the idea that animals couldn't think or feel wasn't really intellectual, it was just an expedient way to regard them since most people were farmers or huntsmen. It came into doctrine through religion and the idea of souls (lack of them in animals), and from there straight into science.

These days the idea among more progressive scientists is more that you assume sentience to start with in others and animals. So in that sense qqq is just putting forth a different spin on a bit of an old (starting to be) discredited idea.

Orin J Master
ironically, the fact they're doing that proves in and of itself that they're self aware, since it means they're aware they don't want to be proven wrong, and an AI would concede immediately.

Nonsense for the following reasons:

1: It is not established that I don't want to be proven wrong, it is established that I act as if I don't want to be proven wrong, an AI/automaton can simulate this.

2: An AI wouldn't concede, it depends on the AI, if humans are an AI that is shaped by natural selection and trial and error it is programmed to not concede easily as selfishness -> more food for you -> more babies -> genes live on, including the ones that cause this behaviour in the first place.

ozoneocean
1. The idea of some people that the world is really rather "matrix-like". That's an idea MUCH, much older than those Matrix movies but they've defined the constructed world idea in the popular conciousness. The cleverer, more advanced version of the idea is that no one and nothing is truly real, but we're in fact all complex constructions thought up by something else... Or even that nothing is real except you yourself and all else is really a dream.
A lot of that goes back solidly to religious foundation of various kinds (Christian, Hindu, Buddhist... etc.). The thing is that you can have a hypothesis like that because you can't prove it's not true.

Ah, a very interesting thing about this one is. Assume that this vast universe is 'real', human beings are on the verge of developing means to simulate such a 'matrix like' idea, or an artificial universe if you like. We already have crude simulations running. Imagine, the human species evolved in like a billionth of the time earth is old, the earth is about a seventh old of the entire universe and in the last 40 years of the million years old human history have we seriously attempted this and we came to this. And probably in the next 200 years or so it's going to be there. The time it took us from start to finish any how is microscopically small on the universal scale, the universe is vast.

It's not that big an assumption to make that other forms of 'life' or at least 'intelligence' out there have already done it, if not, we shall soon enough. There is thus by reasonable chance one 'real' universe and countless more 'simulated' ones.

There are more simulated than real universes so, if looked from an outside perspective, it could be argued reasonably that the chance is simply a lot higher that we live in a simulated one which could for one explain why it behaves such very simple mathematical laws? And why there seems to be some thing at work in the universe that makes every thing consistent and nice fitting from a mathematical perspective. And the more interesting part is, the intelligence that set such a universe up, that intelligence meets the idea of a 'creator', an indifferent God? Galactus? neither benevolent nor malevolent, not caring to reveal Himself, no interest in us or our concepts of 'good' and 'evil', to Him, we're just matter like any other.

But the quaestion I'm more thrown by is, what's the exact difference between 'real' and 'simulated' universe, try to define those terms without being circular, obviously you cannot use the word 'real' or 'simulated' or any derivations thereof.