Neilium

John,

Thanks for shining a light on the corner I painted myself into. Philosophers can talk about not being able to verify another's pain, but physicians can't really dawdle around in that territory if they're to provide a meaningful diagnosis.

- Cheers,
- Neil(ium)

crocodile deathroll

Would it be more preferable that instead of coining the phrase "I think, therefore I am" to coin the phrase "I feel, therefore I am"?

John Page

Ouch!

crocodile deathroll

Now I have to get my computer to say that

Frotiw

But how are you going to do this? We might perhaps establlish the criterias for humans(though they are problematic as well*) between man and machine it is even worse. Humans does not have the same neural correlates still they seem to have(somewhat) the same pain. At least for humans we are build of the same biological material this we do not even share with Data. Criterias based om comtemporary physics(neuroscience) doesn't seem to fit.

*As Mykell correctly noted.

Im sorry this very quickly written, I hope I make sense.

Cheers

John Page

Medical experiments for the lot of you!

excreationist

Perhaps it isn't possible to convince people scientifically that purely physical systems (like brains) can be conscious... non-materialists would say that the matter can't be conscious - and that a parallel substance is. They simply define the other substance as being conscious - and avoid the 1st/3rd person problem.

John Page

Excre:

I agree, however they're still left with the problem of explaining how the mysterious other substance(s) are involved with/facilitate consciousness - an infinite regress type solution IMO.

The thing that *is* conscious of things not the "real" *I*, the *is* is observing the *I* and (because the *is* is not aware of the *itself*), the *is* is fooled into believing it is the *I*.

In the above example, the *is* has the "First Person" perspective but believes the First Person perspective is actually that of *I*. So, we have the First Person fooled into thinking its the Second Person which, when observing itself thinks it has Third Person perspective. There is no "Third Person", except in the idealized sense - the ultimate Third Person perspective being the God's Eye View....

Does this make sense to any of you. Put yourselves in my shoes

Cheers, John

excreationist

John Page:
When I was talking about "1st/3rd person problem" I meant that people can be talking about someone else (3rd person) being conscious (1st person statement)....

MyKell

I disagree,
I think you can scientifically convince people that physical matter is conscious, you just have to provide a mechanistic understanding of qualia.
For instance, before the discovery of DNA and subsequent discovery of it's structure, people had similar beliefs on vitalism that others now have on consciousness.
When we started accepting the concept of the gene, and the mechanism it replicated by, we started understaning how life is copied. Before that, vitalism reigned!
So if we do discover the physical principles behind consciouness not the NCC, I hate that, but the global necessary and sufficient conditions, there is absolutely no reason to believe that we can't simulate them on a computer. There is no reason to believe that those can only arise in carbon based "life-forms" such as ourselves and fellow animals. (not only DNA can replicate... it seems that our ancestors were RNA based. Check out the thread of the chronocyte on Evo/Cre)
Who knows what will come up later, maybe robots will inherit the earth. I hope they don't wipe us all out and start wondering where they came from. A computer-based religion would be hilarious!