Identity (Identity)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, September 07, 2009, 20:01 (5554 days ago) @ dhw

dhw, fascinating as usual! 
> Can it be proven that consciousness is NOT purely material? Can it be proven that life could NOT be the product of chance? If one experiment fails, scientists will move onto another. Faith is part of both sets of beliefs, and I am full of admiration for the scientists who pursue these dreams. Man's quest for knowledge is one of the qualities that make me proud to be human, and it will be fascinating to see what the model brain can and can't achieve.
> -Consciousness itself *is* immaterial. There is no way to refute that. Its origins however... who knows at this point? We know that the brain definitely is its seat--to be fair--most of the time. You are correct that if one experiment fails, scientists move on to another, but neural net computing is the closest artifact man has created to the basic building blocks of the mind. If a consciousness is created in this (artifact is the "proper" term), it won't absolutely solve the origins question, but it would solve the "difference of man" question most assuredly. If this long-term experiment fails, there is no realistic means left to *study* consciousness. If we can't recreate it we can't really *know* anything about it. -> However, you say, Matt, that if consciousness arises, it will resolve the origin of consciousness question. This needs closer scrutiny. First of all, what you are saying amounts to this: if scientists can prove that consciousness is created solely by material means, it will prove that consciousness is created solely by material means. I too find the project exciting, but the hypothesis itself doesn't exactly have me jumping up and down. Secondly, the word 'origin' is misleading. If intelligent humans really do produce a sentient, conscious machine, the achievement will be monumentally, sensationally brilliant, and awards will tumble down on them like confetti. But the feat will not resolve the origin of consciousness question. It will show us that consciousness can be produced by materials, but that it takes super intelligence to put those materials together. 
> -Agreed. However it will also show that it is true that only a particular threshold needs to be reached in brain complexity, and that the difference between us and everything else (in terms of consciousness) is only in degree. It means that consciousness sould be relatively common in the universe. Does it resolve the question that brings us to the site? No. It gives me more reason to doubt a creator, because I think the strongest arguments for a creator lie in the concepts of consciousness. It won't give us an answer to how *our* consciousness arose, but it will give us insights that we don't have.-> What such a machine would achieve for me personally, though, is proof that we do not need a non-material explanation of identity through concepts like soul or spirit. The mechanism (in this case, I think George will accept the word) will have produced its own will, emotions etc. This would definitely require a rethink, also on the part of theists. But Matt, if I may quote your response to David, "on this topic, I'll accept your claim only when it's proven". Until then, the materialist interpretation of mind and identity is "Faith. And raw, at that." 
> -Note: I don't claim they'll be successful. (That would be raw faith.) I was only analyzing the case if it succeeded or failed. I don't even think they will be successful. But the possibilities of success open the imagination to new vistas, as such it is exciting. David to me seems to be prejudging the work. I can't do that. No one has actually *tried* to do it. Let them try, then judge. -
> P.S. You wrote: "Computers are my raison d'être, mon ami." Je vous conseille, mon ami, de ne pas le dire à votre femme.-Ahh... my french is really bad, but I think you said "don't say that to my wife!" If I got that right I laughed my butt off because I thought that after I typed it. I didn't remember how to say "one of my." I think I might pick French back up after I graduate. In the meantime, I'm learning Chinese. (My best friend is bringing a Chinese wife home next summer and my wife and I want to ease the transition as much as possible.)

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"