3 ms·

Imagine having consciousness having an evolutionary advantage. Imagine the possibility for a complex neural network to "bind" a part of external consciousness t

Imagine having consciousness having an evolutionary advantage. Imagine the possibility for a complex neural network to "bind" a part of external consciousness to itself. Then you have external but brain-trapped consciousness as an evolutionary possibility. How to prove: First step is to find some creature with nerves but provably lacking consciousness.

lutusp 13y ago
> Imagine having consciousness having an evolutionary advantage. Because consciousness exists among apparently successful species, it's a reasonable working hypothesis that it has survival value. In evolutionary studies, the burden of evidence is properly borne by those who would argue that an existing, seemingly adaptive trait doesn't have survival value. > First step is to find some creature with nerves but provably lacking consciousness. As to "provably", that can't be done. To prove a lack of consciousness, we would first have to create an objective positive test for consciousness. To do that, we would have to fully define and objectively quantify consciousness. We're nowhere near that stage.
- guard-of-terra 13y ago
  We can try to figure out how to create consciousness in something that didn't have it or remove consciousness from some living being, but we can't prove that we have a success before we understand what consciousness is. By the way, if we were find why consciousness has evolutionary advantage we'll have a subset of what consciousness is. A set of traits for which we can test.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > By the way, if we were find why consciousness has evolutionary advantage we'll have a subset of what consciousness is. Not necessarily. There are plenty of fitness adaptations we can crudely quantify (group A had adaptation X and was more successful as a result) but can't explain (in a rigorous, falsifiable way). The reason is that nature (natural selection) is "smarter" than we are. Also, the Turing test -- the idea that a sufficiently advanced computer program might pass as human if accessed at a text-only terminal -- tells us that our idea about what counts as a conscious being is pretty limited. > A set of traits for which we can test. If we chose a set of traits that we thought identified a conscious person, we could just submit the set to a computer for blind simulation. My point is that consciousness is more complicated than simple behavior, however complex. It is said that elephants pass the mirror test, meaning when they look in a mirror, they apparently realize they are the source of the reflection. This test has come to be a crude measure of consciousness and self-awareness. But I could easily program a robot to imitate the external behavior, without any real sense of what it was doing, or anything resembling consciousness. Consciousness is more complex, and more subtle, than most people realize, and we really haven't even begun sorting it out.
    - guard-of-terra 13y ago
      Am I the only one who thinks mirror test is stupid? You won't realize your recorded voice is yours. You won't realize it's you on a CCTV footage. It's not granted. On the other hand, it's trivial to make robot pass the mirror test, indeed necessary in the environment where mirrors are common.
      - lutusp 13y ago
        > Am I the only one who thinks mirror test is stupid? It's pretty reliable, and the scientists who measure it have a number of ways to be sure they're witnessing what they think. One way is to put a colored spot on an animal's forehead in advance of the test. If the animal looks in the mirror, sees the spot, and then reaches to his own forehead to remove it, we can be pretty sure he grasps that he's looking at a reflection of himself. But as to the outcome supporting or not supporting some theory of consciousness in animals, that's a different story. > On the other hand, it's trivial to make robot pass the mirror test, indeed necessary in the environment where mirrors are common. That's certainly true, and it's a good argument for the limited significance of the mirror test in ideas about consciousness.
        mdda 13y ago
        While the mirror test isn't a positive test for consciousness, for a species not to be able to pass the mirror test indicates that their 'mental model' of the world is lacking in something that would seem to be a necessary component of self-awareness and (therefore?) consciousness.
        lutusp 13y ago
        I think the mirror test, and consciousness, are separate issues. 1. As someone else here pointed out, a computer can be programmed to pass the mirror test, indeed a sophisticated robot must be able to do this, to be able to successfully navigate a complex environment. But that robot need not be conscious to do so. 2. A conscious creature (a creature that shows classic signs of being conscious) isn't necessarily able to pass the mirror test. In this article -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test -- we read that "Primates, other than the great apes, have so far universally failed the mirror test." I think many primates would meet various criteria for consciousness, but can't pass the mirror test. Interestingly, in the linked article, birds of the family Corvidae (crows, ravens, European magpies, gray jays (aka "camp robbers"), and others) pass the mirror test, possibly the only bird type that can. Corvids are very smart birds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corvidae http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corvidae
simonster 13y ago
> How to prove: First step is to find some creature with nerves but provably lacking consciousness. This doesn't seem entirely workable, since it's impossible to prove that anything is/isn't conscious without making auxiliary assumptions (Chalmers calls these "bridging principles"), and these auxiliary assumptions typically fall outside of scientific consensus. No one has conclusively proven that anything lacks consciousness, living or otherwise.
praptak 13y ago
> How to prove: First step is to find some creature with nerves but provably lacking consciousness. This creature is called Philosophical Zombie. Check its wiki page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie for a list of arguments regarding the Zombie.
- guard-of-terra 13y ago
  I don't think real Philosophical Zombie will be indistinguishable from a normal human being. If it would, why aren't we all Philosophical Zombies? Why have we evolved to have consciousness? And that seems probable.

lutusp 13y ago

> Imagine having consciousness having an evolutionary advantage. Because consciousness exists among apparently successful species, it's a reasonable working hypothesis that it has survival value. In evolutionary studies, the burden of evidence is properly borne by those who would argue that an existing, seemingly adaptive trait doesn't have survival value. > First step is to find some creature with nerves but provably lacking consciousness. As to "provably", that can't be done. To prove a lack of consciousness, we would first have to create an objective positive test for consciousness. To do that, we would have to fully define and objectively quantify consciousness. We're nowhere near that stage.

guard-of-terra 13y ago
We can try to figure out how to create consciousness in something that didn't have it or remove consciousness from some living being, but we can't prove that we have a success before we understand what consciousness is. By the way, if we were find why consciousness has evolutionary advantage we'll have a subset of what consciousness is. A set of traits for which we can test.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > By the way, if we were find why consciousness has evolutionary advantage we'll have a subset of what consciousness is. Not necessarily. There are plenty of fitness adaptations we can crudely quantify (group A had adaptation X and was more successful as a result) but can't explain (in a rigorous, falsifiable way). The reason is that nature (natural selection) is "smarter" than we are. Also, the Turing test -- the idea that a sufficiently advanced computer program might pass as human if accessed at a text-only terminal -- tells us that our idea about what counts as a conscious being is pretty limited. > A set of traits for which we can test. If we chose a set of traits that we thought identified a conscious person, we could just submit the set to a computer for blind simulation. My point is that consciousness is more complicated than simple behavior, however complex. It is said that elephants pass the mirror test, meaning when they look in a mirror, they apparently realize they are the source of the reflection. This test has come to be a crude measure of consciousness and self-awareness. But I could easily program a robot to imitate the external behavior, without any real sense of what it was doing, or anything resembling consciousness. Consciousness is more complex, and more subtle, than most people realize, and we really haven't even begun sorting it out.
  - guard-of-terra 13y ago
    Am I the only one who thinks mirror test is stupid? You won't realize your recorded voice is yours. You won't realize it's you on a CCTV footage. It's not granted. On the other hand, it's trivial to make robot pass the mirror test, indeed necessary in the environment where mirrors are common.
    - lutusp 13y ago
      > Am I the only one who thinks mirror test is stupid? It's pretty reliable, and the scientists who measure it have a number of ways to be sure they're witnessing what they think. One way is to put a colored spot on an animal's forehead in advance of the test. If the animal looks in the mirror, sees the spot, and then reaches to his own forehead to remove it, we can be pretty sure he grasps that he's looking at a reflection of himself. But as to the outcome supporting or not supporting some theory of consciousness in animals, that's a different story. > On the other hand, it's trivial to make robot pass the mirror test, indeed necessary in the environment where mirrors are common. That's certainly true, and it's a good argument for the limited significance of the mirror test in ideas about consciousness.
      - mdda 13y ago
        While the mirror test isn't a positive test for consciousness, for a species not to be able to pass the mirror test indicates that their 'mental model' of the world is lacking in something that would seem to be a necessary component of self-awareness and (therefore?) consciousness.
        lutusp 13y ago
        I think the mirror test, and consciousness, are separate issues. 1. As someone else here pointed out, a computer can be programmed to pass the mirror test, indeed a sophisticated robot must be able to do this, to be able to successfully navigate a complex environment. But that robot need not be conscious to do so. 2. A conscious creature (a creature that shows classic signs of being conscious) isn't necessarily able to pass the mirror test. In this article -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test -- we read that "Primates, other than the great apes, have so far universally failed the mirror test." I think many primates would meet various criteria for consciousness, but can't pass the mirror test. Interestingly, in the linked article, birds of the family Corvidae (crows, ravens, European magpies, gray jays (aka "camp robbers"), and others) pass the mirror test, possibly the only bird type that can. Corvids are very smart birds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corvidae http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corvidae

simonster 13y ago

> How to prove: First step is to find some creature with nerves but provably lacking consciousness. This doesn't seem entirely workable, since it's impossible to prove that anything is/isn't conscious without making auxiliary assumptions (Chalmers calls these "bridging principles"), and these auxiliary assumptions typically fall outside of scientific consensus. No one has conclusively proven that anything lacks consciousness, living or otherwise.

praptak 13y ago

> How to prove: First step is to find some creature with nerves but provably lacking consciousness. This creature is called Philosophical Zombie. Check its wiki page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie for a list of arguments regarding the Zombie.

guard-of-terra 13y ago
I don't think real Philosophical Zombie will be indistinguishable from a normal human being. If it would, why aren't we all Philosophical Zombies? Why have we evolved to have consciousness? And that seems probable.