Mod+ What Kastrup (and a few others) seem to miss

#1
"We live in culture dominated by two contrived metaphysical inferences: that the world exists outside consciousness and that particular arrangements of matter in that world somehow generate consciousness. This distorted view of reality feeds the delusory dreams of artificial consciousness so prevalent in the media today, such as in movies like Ex_Machina. "

The above is a view that I've seen proposed a few times. It is also utterly nonsensical. The fact is that it consciousness as fundamental allows for the possible of AI much more than physicalism. That is such a simple and obvious fact that I wonder what gives with those who don't see or ignore.

Since consciousness is fundamental it follows that:

- organic beings are not necessary for the existence of consciousness.
- consciousness itself has (most likely infinite) intents and expressions
- everything, even a rock, is an expression of consciousness.

Therefore consciousness can move to express itself through a machine as easily as it does in and through any other means. It can also move to express itself as "one expression of consciousness developing another."

I'll add (though I have no way to make a solid case for acceptance of this by anyone) that there are already sentient beings that are inorganic.
 
#2
I liked this post, but I don't get why you say that Bernardo Kastrup misses this?

Are you saying that his views are challenged in the face of what you are presenting here? Or something different? I would have thought what you are speculating on here fits entirely and comfortably within the scope and framework of Kastrup's idealism. No?
 
#3
If the brain doesn't produce consciousness, then replicating neural networks within a computer system probably won't do much good as far as generating artificial consciousness, for example. Also, Kastrup referred to AC, not AI.

Nonetheless, do you really think Bernardo never considered the point you're attempting to make? Seriously?
 
#4
If the brain doesn't produce consciousness, then replicating neural networks within a computer system probably won't do much good as far as generating artificial consciousness, for example. Also, Kastrup referred to AC, not AI.

Nonetheless, do you really think Bernardo never considered the point you're attempting to make? Seriously?
I have said this before, but my feeling is that ultimately Bernardo is right - everything is mental. However his theory is remarkably useless at present. I like to compare it with the situation if Newton had come up with General Relativity, rather than Newtonian gravity.

1) It would have been next to impossible for mathematicians to derive any results from the theory in a reasonable time.

2) It would not have been obvious that this was the right extension of the much simpler Newtonian theory that had been skipped.

3) Unless someone managed to derive Newtonian gravity as a limiting case of Newtonian General Relativity, the theory would have been unusable for practical calculations!

I think something similar applies to a theory of mind and matter. Dualism ultimately doesn't make sense (but neither can QM and GR coexist), but it would make a damn good start, and probably provide a stepping stone to a better theory.

BTW, I am not sure anyone can define the difference between AI and AC, because I think our conscious thought is saturated with qualia.

David
 
#5
I liked this post, but I don't get why you say that Bernardo Kastrup misses this?
?? Did you read the quote I posted? Here it is again:

"We live in culture dominated by two contrived metaphysical inferences: that the world exists outside consciousness and that particular arrangements of matter in that world somehow generate consciousness. This distorted view of reality feeds the delusory dreams of artificial consciousness so prevalent in the media today, such as in movies like Ex_Machina. "

I too would have thought that Kastrup (and others) would realize that fundamental consciousness can just as well express through the inorganic but that's not the case. He preaches that the idea of AI is at odds with consciousness as primary.
 
#6
If the brain doesn't produce consciousness, then replicating neural networks within a computer system probably won't do much good as far as generating artificial consciousness, for example. Also, Kastrup referred to AC, not AI.

Nonetheless, do you really think Bernardo never considered the point you're attempting to make? Seriously?
This is the second post by you I've read where you don't seem to see how obviously flawed your reasoning is. Your argument is as erroneous as are the claims that because altering the brain produces different perceptions it means the brain is generating consciousness. Consciousness is. A rock is no more/less an expression of consciousness than a human. Different attributes and types of physical focused awareness of course.

I don't know what Kastrup had or had not considered. Nor is it relevant. What is relevant is what he concludes. His conclusions in this are are flawed and have more in common with a "brain generates consciousness" approach.

Also Kastrup's usage of AC is no different to the common usage of AI.

And - to conclude - your supposed response ignores all the points I expressed in the OP
 
#7
And - to conclude - your supposed response ignores all the points I expressed in the OP
Well, I didn't read the entire OP. I only read that quote and your first two sentences. So I didn't really ignore all the points, as I never gave myself the opportunity to do so. Though I'm sure I would have. What was the rest of your post about?
 
Top