4 ms·

Cognition and consciousness are very different things. Do you think that a sufficiently large contraption of pipes, vales and water will become conscious?

bonoboTP 5y ago
Come back when you can tell if another human being is conscious (and let me know how you were able to tell, so we can apply that test to the pipe contraption).
- namero999 5y ago
  I am a human being and I am conscious. You look like me and behave like me, so I have no reasons to doubt you are conscious too: it's either that or solipsism. The real question is, how can you doubt that another human being is conscious, yet be open to the possibility that a bunch of silicon might be?
  - bonoboTP 5y ago
    > You look like me and behave like me How close must this similarity be? I'm not exactly like you. And apes and dogs are also similar in some ways. Insects? Amoebas? Viruses? > The real question is, how can you doubt that another human being is conscious, yet be open to the possibility that a bunch of silicon might be? I don't know what conscious means. I'm just saying you can't tell if other people are conscious, at least I know of no test. If there was a test, I'm open to the possibility that a bunch of silicon may also pass it, depending on what the test is.
    - namero999 5y ago
      Metabolizing biological life is a good place where to draw the line: we have no instance of presumed conscious behavior that is also not metabolizing. So when I say "like me", that's the dimension I'm considering, which then includes a whole lot of biological life, yes. Conscious means that it feels like something to be the conscious being. There is a perceived inner life, which doesn't stop when sensorial inputs stop (if you ever have the chance to visit a sensory deprivation chamber, you can test this claim). Cognition (meta-consciousness, self-reflectivity) develops on that. That's the main difference between simple life forms and us (still a gradient, but we appear to be at the known edge of that spectrum). I am with you that this is not scientifically testable. At the same time, or rather, because of that, we have to be reasonable and acknowledge our observations. Again, it's either that or solipsism, which is ridiculous and crashes against other intractable problems immediately.

bonoboTP 5y ago

Come back when you can tell if another human being is conscious (and let me know how you were able to tell, so we can apply that test to the pipe contraption).

namero999 5y ago
I am a human being and I am conscious. You look like me and behave like me, so I have no reasons to doubt you are conscious too: it's either that or solipsism. The real question is, how can you doubt that another human being is conscious, yet be open to the possibility that a bunch of silicon might be?
- bonoboTP 5y ago
  > You look like me and behave like me How close must this similarity be? I'm not exactly like you. And apes and dogs are also similar in some ways. Insects? Amoebas? Viruses? > The real question is, how can you doubt that another human being is conscious, yet be open to the possibility that a bunch of silicon might be? I don't know what conscious means. I'm just saying you can't tell if other people are conscious, at least I know of no test. If there was a test, I'm open to the possibility that a bunch of silicon may also pass it, depending on what the test is.
  - namero999 5y ago
    Metabolizing biological life is a good place where to draw the line: we have no instance of presumed conscious behavior that is also not metabolizing. So when I say "like me", that's the dimension I'm considering, which then includes a whole lot of biological life, yes. Conscious means that it feels like something to be the conscious being. There is a perceived inner life, which doesn't stop when sensorial inputs stop (if you ever have the chance to visit a sensory deprivation chamber, you can test this claim). Cognition (meta-consciousness, self-reflectivity) develops on that. That's the main difference between simple life forms and us (still a gradient, but we appear to be at the known edge of that spectrum). I am with you that this is not scientifically testable. At the same time, or rather, because of that, we have to be reasonable and acknowledge our observations. Again, it's either that or solipsism, which is ridiculous and crashes against other intractable problems immediately.