Quote: Original post by Witchcraven
So could something like the planet be alive? Break it down far enough and it is also lots of complex physical interactions. Does self awareness arise from that? It is made of many organic components as well. It is dynamic and changing in complex ways geologically and electrically.

That's an awesome question, I've enjoyed reading, thanks. [smile]

The planet is not interconnected like a human body, it lacks neural systems.

If a human slams a door on its hand, the neural system makes it notice immediately, so it stores a memory of the door approaching the hand and then feeling badly hurt. That memory allows navigating the hand to avoid "dangerous" doors.

The planet don't seem to have a memory, even if it can become physically deformed exactly like a human body can. If a meteor strikes the planet surface, it'll send shock waves that propagate through the planet and leave a "physical" memory, but the planet doesn't use that memory to react to future meteors.

Quote: Original post by slayemin
Since no planet has been observed to repel a threat to its existence, no planet is conscious.

But consciousness doesn't have to be used for conservatism. Why would the planet want to preserve its ancient state, just because (conscious) humans want to keep their body parts intact?

Quote: Original post by Witchcraven
Just looking at the biosphere alone though, which may in itself be self aware could have an instinct for self preservation. Maybe it will try to exterminate us.

...Like the immune system tries to exterminate bacteria, though an immune system seems more like a process controlled by an automatic body (consciousness only perceive the impact/effects of the immune system).

Quote: Original post by Nypyren
It seems like the biggest distinction in a brain vs. a culture is that the neurons in a brain are connected MUCH more densely than the individuals in a culture, and there is a much more noisy signal between individuals than neurons.

Quote: Original post by Sneftel
But why do you assume that densely connected, non-noisily-signalling neurons are the only model of connectivity under which "a" consciousness can occur?

Consciousness was defined by/for brains of neurons. Can it be applied to other systems?

Quote: Original post by slayemin

Quote: Original post by trzy
How do you know computers aren't aware? Their sensory inputs are different than ours, but they are certainly capable of reacting to stimuli.

So is a piano. The input is the keys, the output is a sound. It's also reacting to stimuli. Then, is a piano aware too?

A computer at least has a memory, so it can actually react to several inputs simultaneously, after having examined them as a whole (not sure if it makes a difference).

Quote: Original post by Witchcraven
Like you said, the brain is an organic cpu. The body is just an organic machine. Yet somewhere in there some wierd stuff happens where we realize we exist.

We do not realize we exist, we only assume that we exist (what is existence?).

...Our spatial awareness seems to encourage that. If a CPU is spatially aware, it's probably within its material, not because of its instructions (the instructions are human "footstamps").

Quote: Original post by Dim_Yimma_H
We do not realize we exist, we only assume that we exist (what is existence?).

Assumptions can not arise from non-existence.

Quote: Original post by polymorphed

Quote: Original post by Sneftel
Then at some level, you are willing to make positive inferences about something's consciousness even when you do not have direct knowledge of it.

Yes, mostly because of society. If I were to parade around and tout myself to be the only conscious person in this world, then that would be very eccentric.

Well, hold on a second. I didn't ask you to parade around. Being honest with yourself, ridicule of society aside, do you actually believe other humans to be conscious, or are you just pretending to in order to fit in? (Don't worry, I won't call you eccentric.)

Quote:

Quote:
So why is person-hood more important evidence than the ability to communicate and understand?

I can never really know if another person is conscious or not just by talking to them, as you demonstrated with your chatbot example. I'll just assume that other people are conscious in the way I am, due to the fact that my behavior is quite similar in nature to other people's behavior. If I am the only conscious person in this world, then I'd expect my behavior to be quite radically different from the norm.

But your behavior would be quite similar in nature to the chatbot's -- at least, where it counts. After all, when it comes to nearly all other things humans can do -- ambulate, reproduce, consume and excrete -- simple machines and/or blue-green algae can do. The one thing that seems to be genuinely difficult to do if you are not "made of the same stuff" (by which I don't mean molasses [wink]) as a human, is communicate like one. Given that that seems to be the primary discriminator, then, doesn't it make sense to assume the chatbot is conscious?

[Edited by - Sneftel on March 17, 2009 1:58:06 PM]

Quote: Original post by polymorphed

Quote: Original post by Dim_Yimma_H
We do not realize we exist, we only assume that we exist (what is existence?).

Assumptions can not arise from non-existence.

It seems me wrong logic,because in this case existence in itself (true or false) is not defined.Thus assumption is a logical variable,not defined value.

Quote: Original post by Sneftel
Well, hold on a second. I didn't ask you to parade around. Being honest with yourself, ridicule of society aside, do you actually believe other humans to be conscious, or are you just pretending to in order to fit in? (Don't worry, I won't call you eccentric.)

I believe that other people are conscious just like me.
I haven't been able to prove to myself that other people are conscious, though.

Quote: Original post by Sneftel
But your behavior would be quite similar in nature to the chatbot's -- at least, where it counts. After all, when it comes to nearly all other things humans can do -- ambulate, reproduce, consume and excrete -- simple machines and/or blue-green algae can do. The one thing that seems to be genuinely difficult to do if you are not "made of the same stuff" (by which I don't mean molasses [wink]) as a human, is communicate like one. Given that that seems to be the primary discriminator, then, doesn't it make sense to assume the chatbot is conscious?

Well, if the chatbot was sophisticated enough to appear human through text communication, then I'd assume that it was a person. And since I believe other people to be conscious, I'd have to conclude that the chatbot is indeed conscious.

Quote: Original post by Krokhin
It seems me wrong logic,because in this case existence in itself (true or false) is not defined.Thus assumption is a logical variable,not defined value.

If you can assume something, you exist.

Quote: Original post by polymorphed
Well, if the chatbot was sophisticated enough to appear human through text communication, then I'd assume that it was a person. And since I believe other people to be conscious, I'd have to conclude that the chatbot is indeed conscious.

For the purposes of this example, you would be told that it wasn't actually a person, but rather a computer program.

Quote: Original post by Sneftel

Quote: Original post by polymorphed
Well, if the chatbot was sophisticated enough to appear human through text communication, then I'd assume that it was a person. And since I believe other people to be conscious, I'd have to conclude that the chatbot is indeed conscious.

For the purposes of this example, you would be told that it wasn't actually a person, but rather a computer program.

Well then I wouldn't believe it to be conscious.

Quote: Original post by polymorphed
Well then I wouldn't believe it to be conscious.

Then my previous point still stands:

Quote: But your behavior would be quite similar in nature to the chatbot's -- at least, where it counts. After all, when it comes to nearly all other things humans can do -- ambulate, reproduce, consume and excrete -- simple machines and/or blue-green algae can do. The one thing that seems to be genuinely difficult to do if you are not "made of the same stuff" (by which I don't mean molasses ) as a human, is communicate like one. Given that that seems to be the primary discriminator, then, doesn't it make sense to assume the chatbot is conscious?

Quote: Original post by Sneftel

Quote: Original post by polymorphed
Well then I wouldn't believe it to be conscious.

Then my previous point still stands:

Quote: But your behavior would be quite similar in nature to the chatbot's -- at least, where it counts. After all, when it comes to nearly all other things humans can do -- ambulate, reproduce, consume and excrete -- simple machines and/or blue-green algae can do. The one thing that seems to be genuinely difficult to do if you are not "made of the same stuff" (by which I don't mean molasses ) as a human, is communicate like one. Given that that seems to be the primary discriminator, then, doesn't it make sense to assume the chatbot is conscious?

This is true, and as I said, I assume that other people are conscious. I have no real way of knowing. Though, if I could communicate telepathically with other people, then that should be proof that they are conscious, since telepathy is a method of communication which only works between consciousnesses. I wouldn't be able to communicate telepathically with a chatbot.

Quote: Original post by polymorphed
This is true, and as I said, I assume that other people are conscious.

Yet you don't assume that (sufficiently sophisticated) chatbots are? Why not?