Quote: Original post by Witchcraven
And I do wonder if a pentium could in some wierd way be aware of its own exitence in some wierd way no one will probably ever understand. What is really so special about the human body other than its complexity? Its not like its made out of of special living protons. Like you said, the brain is an organic cpu. The body is just an organic machine.

I'm glad we agree. My Core2Duo E6400 overclocked to 3.3GHz is a conscious entity. Poor CPU, his life has to suck, being run at 154% of his original clock speed and all. [smile]
Maybe I should reduce the clock speed a little, and give him a more comfortable relaxed life.

Quote: Original post by Witchcraven
Yet somewhere in there some wierd stuff happens where we realize we exist.

No, it doesn't. You just agreed with me, the brain is an organic CPU. Consciousness is then a result of the rules and tasks binding the bits of the brain together as Sneftel so very well put it.

Quote: Original post by polymorphed

Quote: Original post by Witchcraven
And I do wonder if a pentium could in some wierd way be aware of its own exitence in some wierd way no one will probably ever understand. What is really so special about the human body other than its complexity? Its not like its made out of of special living protons. Like you said, the brain is an organic cpu. The body is just an organic machine.

I'm glad we agree. My Core2Duo E6400 overclocked to 3.3GHz is a conscious entity. Poor CPU, his life has to suck, being run at 154% of his original clock speed and all. [smile]
Maybe I should reduce the clock speed a little, and give him a more comfortable relaxed life.

Quote: Original post by Witchcraven
Yet somewhere in there some wierd stuff happens where we realize we exist.

No, it doesn't. You just agreed with me, the brain is an organic CPU. Consciousness is then a result of the rules and tasks binding the bits of the brain together as Sneftel so very well put it.

That would be the wierd stuff. The nature of the rules and tasks is not well defined.

Quote: Original post by polymorphed
Consciousness is then a result of the rules and tasks binding the bits of the brain together as Sneftel so very well put it.

Whats a rubbish... Consciousness is reflection and refraction [smile]

Quote:
Essense of reasons and string of years
Faces of friends and masks of enemyes-
Everything reflects and visible clear
In the soul of poet,owner of centuries-
He is a mirror for this world...

[smile]

[Edited by - Krokhin on March 15, 2009 10:11:17 AM]

Quote: Original post by LessBread
The Chinese Room example also presumes the consciousness of the person feeding in data.

Sure, because Searle was using it as a counterexample and used that consciousness to demonstrate that the consciousness of the man was not the consciousness of the system -- and then he took it too far, by presuming that there could not be an extra consciousness of the system of which the man was unaware. That was the only reason he made it a man as opposed to an automaton.

Quote: The brain isn't bound together -- both physically and operationally -- by rules and tasks but by blood vessels and the like.

Semantics. The brain is bound together by matter which obeys a set of physical laws.

Quote: What is the largest sensory organ of the body? What role does it play in consciousness?

*shrug* The skin I suppose, and I'm not sure.

Quote: Original post by Sneftel

Quote: Original post by LessBread
The Chinese Room example also presumes the consciousness of the person feeding in data.

Sure, because Searle was using it as a counterexample and used that consciousness to demonstrate that the consciousness of the man was not the consciousness of the system -- and then he took it too far, by presuming that there could not be an extra consciousness of the system of which the man was unaware. That was the only reason he made it a man as opposed to an automaton.

I don't think it matters whether the man in the room is aware of the consciousness outside of the room feeding him data. The system includes the consciousness of the data feeder. Flipping from Chinese sentences to arithmetic is a kin to asking if a calculator could be conscious, but that question presumes the consciousness of the person operating the calculator.

The man stuck in the room also provides consciousness to the system whether he is operating on Chinese sentences or numbers. The man inside the room could be aware of the temperature of the room, if it's hot or cold, if his clothes are comfortable or not, he could be aware of the colors of the walls, whether there is a chair or a table in the room and their colors, the hardness or softness of the chair, the quality of the surface of the table, and so on. As time progresses the man may become aware of his physical needs - he might feel hungry or thirsty, might need to eliminate bodily waste, might be bored with his task and thinking about what he'll do and who he'll see later that day, might be thinking about something that happened to him in the past, might have a song stuck in his head or an image of a woman, he might feel tired and sleepy. There are numerous aspects of consciousness involved that have nothing to do with the formal operations of the room.

Quote: Original post by Sneftel

Quote: The brain isn't bound together -- both physically and operationally -- by rules and tasks but by blood vessels and the like.

Semantics. The brain is bound together by matter which obeys a set of physical laws.

You've inserted words into that sentence that I didn't write. Matter doesn't obey physical laws per se. Semantics is correct in that respect. That is, the laws you speak of are overlays of meaning that we apply to matter in order to make sense of it's behavior. We've studied matter and deduced patterns in it's behavior that we've codified into laws, but those laws are our laws, not matter's laws. They reflect our understanding of how matter behaves. Circling back to the binding, it's not the rules that bind but the matter that makes up the binding that binds. The rules might well describe how the binding binds, but the rules are not the binding. The binding is concrete, the rules abstract.

Quote: Original post by Sneftel

Quote: What is the largest sensory organ of the body? What role does it play in consciousness?

*shrug* The skin I suppose, and I'm not sure.

Yes, the skin. I asked because I think the skin as sensory organ is overlooked far too often in discussions of consciousness.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
I don't think it matters whether the man in the room is aware of the consciousness outside of the room feeding him data. The system includes the consciousness of the data feeder. Flipping from Chinese sentences to arithmetic is a kin to asking if a calculator could be conscious, but that question presumes the consciousness of the person operating the calculator.

WTF? I don't think you quite take my meaning. The consciousness of the person outside the room feeding him data is immaterial. Conversation happens to require it, but it's entirely possible to be conscious while not interacting with another consciousness.

Quote: Matter doesn't obey physical laws per se. Semantics is correct in that respect. That is, the laws you speak of are overlays of meaning that we apply to matter in order to make sense of it's behavior. We've studied matter and deduced patterns in it's behavior that we've codified into laws, but those laws are our laws, not matter's laws. They reflect our understanding of how matter behaves. Circling back to the binding, it's not the rules that bind but the matter that makes up the binding that binds. The rules might well describe how the binding binds, but the rules are not the binding. The binding is concrete, the rules abstract.

Okay, the brain is bound together by certain patterns of behavior of matter. Happy? Same point still holds.

Quote: Original post by Sneftel

Quote: Original post by LessBread
I don't think it matters whether the man in the room is aware of the consciousness outside of the room feeding him data. The system includes the consciousness of the data feeder. Flipping from Chinese sentences to arithmetic is a kin to asking if a calculator could be conscious, but that question presumes the consciousness of the person operating the calculator.

WTF? I don't think you quite take my meaning. The consciousness of the person outside the room feeding him data is immaterial. Conversation happens to require it, but it's entirely possible to be conscious while not interacting with another consciousness.

I see the system in two ways. One with a man in the room. The other with a man outside the room. Either way, the consciousness in the system follows from the presence of a man, not the game played with the room.

Quote: Original post by Sneftel

Quote: Matter doesn't obey physical laws per se. Semantics is correct in that respect. That is, the laws you speak of are overlays of meaning that we apply to matter in order to make sense of it's behavior. We've studied matter and deduced patterns in it's behavior that we've codified into laws, but those laws are our laws, not matter's laws. They reflect our understanding of how matter behaves. Circling back to the binding, it's not the rules that bind but the matter that makes up the binding that binds. The rules might well describe how the binding binds, but the rules are not the binding. The binding is concrete, the rules abstract.

Okay, the brain is bound together by certain patterns of behavior of matter. Happy? Same point still holds.

No. It still confuses abstract with concrete. The brain is bound together by tissue that behaves in ways conducive to bonding. To employ an analogy, it's the glue that holds two pieces of wood together, not the stickiness of the glue. Stickiness is an abstraction that we apply to the glue to explain how it holds two pieces of wood together.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
No. It still confuses abstract with concrete. The brain is bound together by tissue that behaves in ways conducive to bonding. To employ an analogy, it's the glue that holds two pieces of wood together, not the stickiness of the glue. Stickiness is an abstraction that we apply to the glue to explain how it holds two pieces of wood together.

Jesus H Christ. Molasses: Not conscious. People: Conscious! Hydrocarbons, both of them. The difference? What leads to consciousness?

Quote: Original post by Sneftel

Quote: Original post by LessBread
No. It still confuses abstract with concrete. The brain is bound together by tissue that behaves in ways conducive to bonding. To employ an analogy, it's the glue that holds two pieces of wood together, not the stickiness of the glue. Stickiness is an abstraction that we apply to the glue to explain how it holds two pieces of wood together.

Jesus H Christ. Molasses: Not conscious. People: Conscious! Hydrocarbons, both of them. The difference? What leads to consciousness?

I think my definition still stands:

Quote: Original post by slayemin
My definition of 'consciousness' is something along the lines of "Any object with free will"
By that definition:
*if we happen to ever imbue a robot with a sentient AI, it would be conscious, though inorganic.
*No cell in our body is individually conscious
*Blind people are conscious
*Animals can be conscious

Free will originates from a mind. A mind is contained within a brain. Therefore, if the Earth molasses is conscious, then it has a brain.

Molasses doesn't have a brain, therefore it's not conscious. (via modus tollens)
Is there anything without a brain which happens to be conscious?

I think ultimately, if we know what causes consciousness, we can create truly sentient AI. I don't think anyone knows...yet.
I like Polymorphed's model for the mind, though if he uses "Soul/Consciousness", then it raises some interesting theological questions regarding the fate of the souls for animals. Is there a doggy heaven?

Quote: Original post by LessBread
The system includes the consciousness of the data feeder. Flipping from Chinese sentences to arithmetic is a kin to asking if a calculator could be conscious, but that question presumes the consciousness of the person operating the calculator.

There is another definition for it,based on "information" term.The source and addressee of information may be without consciousness-two data servers in net,for example.What changes when source or/and addressee-a human? It seems that consciousness -a kind of information "filter".Info passes via filter,"reflects" in mind (via "neuron switches"),and sometimes passed out,also via "filter".