|
Post by general313 on Apr 4, 2017 15:07:29 GMT
This is veering toward solipsism. There's no experiment that can prove or disprove solipsism, so it is not a scientific proposition. I can assure you that this is not you speaking, but another machine entirely. Would you like me to tell and prove something that you do not presently know? No assurance necessary! I didn't say I hold solipsist views. However, if I were, I could argue that what you proved to me that I didn't know was either known by me subconsciously or deduced or even synthesized.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 4, 2017 15:10:04 GMT
I see what you mean But arguably it depends what you mean by 'senses'. For instance a fire sensor might react incorrectly to an external event.
Not really. A fire sensor is built to sense certain things, not necessarily fire itself. We choose to label it's purpose. It isn't reacting incorrectly, malfunction aside. As well, a difference in perception of what is real is what an illusion is, but the perception must exist first. No matter what its correct purpose is, a mechanical sensor is, or is intended to be, a sense to that system. How it reacts, or not, does not affect that.
Also, as we have seen argued, it is quite possible to be deceived that a perception exists. Such as the perception that we have consciousness. And so we go round again. lol
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 4, 2017 15:14:36 GMT
If a machine is so complex as to not know it's a machine, and it's maker is not around to explain the difference, then it would be have consciousness/independence simply on the basis of thinking it does. Who says machines have to be "complex" for them not to know they are machines? It would be very basic to programme a machine to think it is a sofa or sperm. True.
However, the machine would need complexity to contemplate it's existence, so I just worked that into my assumptions.
A PS4 does not concern itself with that or it may do so but also knows it was created for a particular function...Allowing me to play Uncharted 4.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2017 15:14:45 GMT
Not by itself. Reality is an illusion. There's a super-reality which is what "reality" is a copy of. How would one know that the super-reality is not just a super-illusion? Because one would not be an idiot.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 4, 2017 15:16:53 GMT
If a machine is so complex as to not know it's a machine, and it's maker is not around to explain the difference, then it would be have consciousness/independence simply on the basis of thinking it does. Who says machines have to be "complex" for them not to know they are machines? It would be very basic to programme a machine to think it is a sofa or sperm. Well to be fair, in your examples the machines would not really know, since it would be an incorrect deduction or inbuilt assumption one is talking about. You are talking about the ease of fooling simple machines, a possibility that I agree with. But this does not necessarily mean that complex machines cannot be fooled by whatever false or ambiguous data they process. Indeed the mere fact that we are discussing it here is evidence of that! There is also a divide between consciousness and 'certainty' to be explored, in that a machine need not be conscious to make a decision .
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 4, 2017 15:17:37 GMT
How would one know that the super-reality is not just a super-illusion? Because one would not be an idiot. Does one have to be clever then to know about a definite super-reality?
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Apr 4, 2017 15:21:12 GMT
Who says machines have to be "complex" for them not to know they are machines? It would be very basic to programme a machine to think it is a sofa or sperm. True.
However, the machine would need complexity to contemplate it's existence, so I just worked that into my assumptions.
A PS4 does not concern itself with that or it may do so but also knows I was created for a particular function...Allowing me to play Uncharted 4.
Who said anything about contemplating? A PS4 is different, you could easily input information in to a machine's hard drive or whatever.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Apr 4, 2017 15:23:37 GMT
Who says machines have to be "complex" for them not to know they are machines? It would be very basic to programme a machine to think it is a sofa or sperm. Well to be fair, in your examples the machines would not really know, since it would be an incorrect deduction or inbuilt assumption one is talking about. You are talking about the ease of fooling simple machines, a possibility that I agree with. But this does not necessarily mean that complex machines cannot be fooled by whatever false or ambiguous data they process. Indeed the mere fact that we are discussing it here is evidence of that! There is also a divide between consciousness and 'certainty' to be explored, in that a machine need not be conscious to make a decision . A complex machine could be programmed not to question whether it is a sofa.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Apr 4, 2017 15:26:30 GMT
That's a pretty big misrepresentation of Descartes' thought for a start.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 4, 2017 15:27:00 GMT
I can assure you that this is not you speaking, but another machine entirely. Would you like me to tell and prove something that you do not presently know? No assurance necessary! I didn't say I hold solipsist views. However, if I were, I could argue that what you proved to me that I didn't know was either known by me subconsciously or deduced or even synthesized. LOL well you could argue that, but the simplest answer would probably be that it was just fresh data not known to you rather than special pleading as to why you previously weren't aware of what you are now telling yourself. Also one presumes that you always act as if this is the case, (part of the 'illusion of consciousness' maybe?) and in doing so continuously accept the same balance of probabilities as a workable and the most reasonable alternative. Given that the probabilities work out (in that they follow continuous, coherent and logical processes whenever apprehended and measured, and that presumably you have always satisfactorily distinguished between life and any non-drugged dream state) it is reasonable to assume that acting as if it was the case is the most likely judgement about a wider reality, not least since it works so well. There is also the question as to where your subconscious could obtain knowledge in the first place where that knowledge, especially of a technical or extended type, was not something it could have readily 'structured' by the imagination) I agree this is not subject to scientific proof though!
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 4, 2017 15:28:34 GMT
True.
However, the machine would need complexity to contemplate it's existence, so I just worked that into my assumptions.
A PS4 does not concern itself with that or it may do so but also knows I was created for a particular function...Allowing me to play Uncharted 4.
Who said anything about contemplating? A PS4 is different, you could easily input information in to a machines hard drive or whatever. It wouldn't be aware of consciousness without contemplation of it. It may be aware it exists, but it is also aware of its purpose making it simply a machine.
I'm thinking the point is that we would not be much different from the PS4 if not for the difference of us being able to self-input information, contemplate it (Most machines are closed systems), and even reprogram ourselves. A computer is slave to its programming whereas a machine that thinks it can make a myriad of choices without being aware of a program controlling them is indeed enjoying freedom due to that programming.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Apr 4, 2017 15:34:42 GMT
Who said anything about contemplating? A PS4 is different, you could easily input information in to a machines hard drive or whatever. It wouldn't be aware of consciousness without contemplation of it. It may be aware it exists, but it is also aware of its purpose making it simply a machine.
I'm thinking the point is that we would not be much different from the PS4 if not for the difference of us being able to self-input information, contemplate it (Most machines are closed systems), and even reprogram ourselves. A computer is slave to its programming whereas a machine that thinks it can make a myriad of choices without being aware of a program controlling them is indeed enjoying freedom due to that programming.
1) Wo said anything about concsiousness? 2) What makes you think it is aware of it purpose? You are antropomorphising. 3) Again why do you think a machine thinks "it can make a myriad of choices without being aware of a program controlling them is indeed enjoying freedom due to that programming."? 4)A computer is a machine.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 4, 2017 15:37:43 GMT
tpfkar And it fleshes out its assertions with non sequiturs. Computers make excellent and efficient servants, but I have no wish to serve under them.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 4, 2017 15:42:39 GMT
It wouldn't be aware of consciousness without contemplation of it. It may be aware it exists, but it is also aware of its purpose making it simply a machine.
I'm thinking the point is that we would not be much different from the PS4 if not for the difference of us being able to self-input information, contemplate it (Most machines are closed systems), and even reprogram ourselves. A computer is slave to its programming whereas a machine that thinks it can make a myriad of choices without being aware of a program controlling them is indeed enjoying freedom due to that programming.
1) Wo said anything about concsiousness? 2) What makes you think it is aware of it purpose? You are antropomorphising. 3) Again why do you think a machine thinks "it can make a myriad of choices without being aware of a program controlling them is indeed enjoying freedom due to that programming."? 4)A computer is a machine. Ok
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2017 16:40:05 GMT
That's a pretty big misrepresentation of Descartes' thought for a start.
Yep the levers and pulleys part is false, Descartes was referring to bodies directly themselves. There are some gruesome anecdotes about that in Huxley's On the Hypothesis that Animals are Automata. But in some sense he could envision future machines replicating them. He makes the mind-machine distinction in regards to knowledge. It's interesting how close this is to where we are today with narrow AI vs possible future real AI (sorry for any word breaks. it's ripped from a pdf).
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Apr 4, 2017 16:52:48 GMT
"Consciousness is real. Of course it is. We experience it every day. But for Daniel Dennett, consciousness is no more real than the screen on your laptop or your phone." Well, it kind of does. I have to agree with cupcakes on this one. The screens on my computer and phone seem pretty real to me. So do the images which appear on them, which I manipulate and thus cause a series of extremely complex events to transpire, events too complex for my ape brain to manage on their own. When I drag a file into a folder, is there really a file and really a folder? No. But the animated file and folder are the visual representations of very real structures in my computer. They are sort of illusory, but also very real. That is what Dennett means when he calls consciousness a user illusion. You are not conscious of networks of neurons firing or any of the other myriad of complex events going on inside of you. You are conscious of thoughts, which are the equivalent in his model of the files and folders you manipulate on your computer. They are sort of illusory, but also very real. The article, as are most attempts at science journalism (or philosophy journalism), is extremely, deceptively simplistic about a very complex subject.
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Apr 4, 2017 19:15:29 GMT
Sounds like one of those "angels on the head of a pin" type questions. Even if we built a machine which was indistinguishable from a human, how could we possibly establish whether our own consciousness is just an illusion or not?
|
|