4 ms·

What is a "normal physical phenomenon" and what is a "non-normal physical phenomenon"? It would seem to me that something is either physical or metaphysical. N

What is a "normal physical phenomenon" and what is a "non-normal physical phenomenon"? It would seem to me that something is either physical or metaphysical. Not once in the entire history of human inquiry has something turned out to be provably "because magic". Lightning was not Zeus having a fit, plagues were not the vengeance of the gods, birth defects are not the disdain of our ancestors, and humanity did not get created from clay. The scenario you put forward is the "Chinese Room" argument, and it's incredibly flawed but is a great example of flawed philosophical thinking regarding consciousness. It's main problem is that it was directed at Alan Turing's "Turing Test" which was also flawed. The Turing test boils down to, "If a machine can make you think it's a human, it's true artificial intelligence". The Chinese Room argument rebutted and put forward the idea that if you have some in a rule with a algorithm to associate symbols from one language to another(lets say english to chinese), and another room with somebody who actually speaks Chinese and English, externally they would be indistinguishable but these is clearly a difference between the two. I, for one, totally agree with this sentiment, but it doesn't really speak to consciousness, but just how bad the Turing Test was as defining artificial intelligence. The problem is that the philosophers then applied to Chinese Room Argument to not just the very narrow (and completely wrong) definition of AI outlined by the Turing Test, not just to artificial intelligence (which would be incorrect), but consciousness in general (which is a horrendous error), no matter how defined, it's just a plain logical incongruence. You ask questions such as "are we creating 100% real pain", while not describing exactly what IS pain? I think it's pretty hard to say that thing A(let's say an artificial intelligence living in some super computer cluster), is not equal to B(A fully conscious entity), when we can not yet even define what B is. While I think it's pretty safe to say that such a AI would never know what it is like to be you, and you it, that hardly means it's not (fully, real, actual, insert whatever word you want to call it here) consciousness. Once or if total mastery of artificial is achieved it seems reasonable that you would be able to create a artificial intelligence with capabilities very similar to the humans. With the same sensors, neuronal network capabilities, even an artificial human body and at this point the differences between the way a human experiences reality this theoretical human-like robot experiences reality would more resemble the differences between the way I perceive reality/exercise consciousness than the differences between a pile-of-sand computer and a human.

RivieraKid 12y ago
> It would seem to me that something is either physical or metaphysical. Yes, I meant that it's a metaphysical thing. > Not once in the entire history of human inquiry has something turned out to be provably "because magic". Lightning was not Zeus having a fit, plagues were not the vengeance of the gods, birth defects are not the disdain of our ancestors, and humanity did not get created from clay. Which is why people find it hard to accept the idea of consciousness not being physical. > The scenario you put forward is the "Chinese Room" argument Perhaps there are some similarities, but it's a different argument. > You ask questions such as "are we creating 100% real pain", while not describing exactly what IS pain? Good point. How would you define consciousness? I define it simply as my current feelings, perceptions, thoughts, etc. By this definition, only one consciousness exists. Consciousness is the only thing one can be sure about. When I feel pain, it's a non-disputable fact that I have this unpleasant feeling. But I can't be sure about anything else, for example the physical laws (they can change tomorrow). Or you can wake up from a Matrix - actually absolutely anything can happen. How would I define pain – it's sort of a axiom (not sure how to express myself here) and it's subjective. Objective definition that would allow you to test if someone is feeling pain doesn't exist (or it would describe something else than the feeling of pain). Similarly, physics is simply unable to define consciusnes, it's out of the scope of physics.

RivieraKid 12y ago

> It would seem to me that something is either physical or metaphysical. Yes, I meant that it's a metaphysical thing. > Not once in the entire history of human inquiry has something turned out to be provably "because magic". Lightning was not Zeus having a fit, plagues were not the vengeance of the gods, birth defects are not the disdain of our ancestors, and humanity did not get created from clay. Which is why people find it hard to accept the idea of consciousness not being physical. > The scenario you put forward is the "Chinese Room" argument Perhaps there are some similarities, but it's a different argument. > You ask questions such as "are we creating 100% real pain", while not describing exactly what IS pain? Good point. How would you define consciousness? I define it simply as my current feelings, perceptions, thoughts, etc. By this definition, only one consciousness exists. Consciousness is the only thing one can be sure about. When I feel pain, it's a non-disputable fact that I have this unpleasant feeling. But I can't be sure about anything else, for example the physical laws (they can change tomorrow). Or you can wake up from a Matrix - actually absolutely anything can happen. How would I define pain – it's sort of a axiom (not sure how to express myself here) and it's subjective. Objective definition that would allow you to test if someone is feeling pain doesn't exist (or it would describe something else than the feeling of pain). Similarly, physics is simply unable to define consciusnes, it's out of the scope of physics.