New study linking brain activity to NDE's

Oh! I think I found it in this quote from David in that forum:


My understanding of this argument is this:
  1. atoms don't think.
  2. so collections of atoms can't think.
  3. therefore, anyone who believes atoms think is deluding themselves.
Does that sound like a succinct recitation of your position, David?
It depends entirely about what you mean by 'think' (as Bill Clinton might say)! If you mean compute - we know how collections atoms can compute, but even if we didn't, it is clear at a very general level that if you can persuade matter to behave in non-linear ways that permits some sort of switching between states, you can use that to create a computer. You could make a computer out of water running over a complicated surface if you tried hard enough!

The problem, as David Chalmers pointed out, is how do you make matter actually have experiences? The entire concept of meaningfulness rests on the need for awareness.

If all you want to do is compute, there is no problem, so why not imagine everything going on inside a computer - which is easier to think about - if necessary imagine that a suitably powerful computer is simulating matter at a sufficient level of detail.

I guess before I go further, you should answer a question - do you think a computer + suitable program could be conscious in the same way that we are - in principle - we are talking gedanken experiments here!

David
 
Last edited:
If I love my child, which I do, then everything after the second sentence is just crazy talk.
Again, you seem to make the leap from 'materialist' to 'psychopathic sociopath' with frightening ease.
Humans are social, most primates are social. Hell, most *mammals* are social. Sociability works for the survival of the individual and the species.

I am simply trying to show you the disconnect in thinking between the personal, and your world view. Calling various animals 'social' doesn't achieve more than label the problem.

It is obviously possible to construct evolutionary explanations for being social, but that seems perilously close to saying that we have evolved a distorted way of looking at the world that ascribes meaning to the meaningless, just because it helps us reproduce! Is that how you see yourself?

BTW, I don't want to suggest that humans are special. Animals obviously also have feelings and find things meaningful too.

David
 
Considering the words that he could have used, I thought his comment was thoughtful and considered. In fact, just 4 posts later, David is trying to explain to me why I should be happy and content to kill or injure my own child. Bertha, in case you are in any doubt, I find this statement abhorrent. So far, the hates seems to be flowing one way and I am the one being called an immoral baby-murderer.
I assume you are trying to be amusing. I was doing no such thing. I was pointing out that your view of your family is inconsistent with your view of matter as a whole.

David
 
I guess before I go further, you should answer a question - do you think a computer + suitable program could be conscious in the same way that we are - in principle - we are talking gedanken experiments here!
I don't know. The Human Brain Project is, right now, trying to address this very question. I would be pretty surprised if it succeeded or if it failed. Because I am interested in learning new things.

I asked you the same question a while ago.
I asked you if this project succeeded, would you accept that consciousness is an emergent property of a complex system or would you deny by moving the goal posts and a) saying that this computer simulation is acting as some sort of 'consciousness' receiver or b) deny that it was really conscious?
I then asked what standard you would use to test for consciousness and then asked if the Turing test would be sufficient.

So, basically, we've just circled around each other.

If your supposition that consciousness is not a function of the brain, then no level of simulation will create a consciousness. If it does, would this affect your beliefs about brain-mind separation?
I have, previously, suggested several testable hypotheses that would indicate to me that there really is a brain-mind separation. If these issues were addressed I would change my mind. Let me sum it up here:

A repeatable test for any of the following: clairvoyance, mind projection, remote viewing, mind reading, telekinesis, or telepathy. All of which would show that the mind isn't 'trapped' in a brain.
This test would have to pass scientific muster and I would like it to pass a test for fraud by people who are good at fooling other people*

That's it. If these phenomenon are clearly demonstrated, I would have no reason to deny them. Why would I? I think a world where these things actually worked would be fascinating. I think a world were magic or alchemy worked would be fascinating. I think a world where wormholes popped into existence and I could instantaneously jump across the galaxy would be fascinating. Why do you insist that I don't wish these things were true? I would be happy to have new fields of knowledge to explore!

However, I would ask you to identify if there is any test that would dissuade you from your position. You don't even need to tell us what it would be. I am only asking if you are self-aware enough to see if such a test exists.
If there is no test, then you are taking a position of faith, not scientific inquiry.

* Uri Geller fooled several scientists with common mentalist tricks. You really do need someone like James Randi to test for hoaxers and liars.
 
I don't know. The Human Brain Project is, right now, trying to address this very question. I would be pretty surprised if it succeeded or if it failed. Because I am interested in learning new things.

I asked you the same question a while ago.
I asked you if this project succeeded, would you accept that consciousness is an emergent property of a complex system or would you deny by moving the goal posts and a) saying that this computer simulation is acting as some sort of 'consciousness' receiver or b) deny that it was really conscious?
I then asked what standard you would use to test for consciousness and then asked if the Turing test would be sufficient.

So, basically, we've just circled around each other.

If your supposition that consciousness is not a function of the brain, then no level of simulation will create a consciousness. If it does, would this affect your beliefs about brain-mind separation?
I have, previously, suggested several testable hypotheses that would indicate to me that there really is a brain-mind separation. If these issues were addressed I would change my mind. Let me sum it up here:

A repeatable test for any of the following: clairvoyance, mind projection, remote viewing, mind reading, telekinesis, or telepathy. All of which would show that the mind isn't 'trapped' in a brain.
This test would have to pass scientific muster and I would like it to pass a test for fraud by people who are good at fooling other people*

That's it. If these phenomenon are clearly demonstrated, I would have no reason to deny them. Why would I? I think a world where these things actually worked would be fascinating. I think a world were magic or alchemy worked would be fascinating. I think a world where wormholes popped into existence and I could instantaneously jump across the galaxy would be fascinating. Why do you insist that I don't wish these things were true? I would be happy to have new fields of knowledge to explore!

However, I would ask you to identify if there is any test that would dissuade you from your position. You don't even need to tell us what it would be. I am only asking if you are self-aware enough to see if such a test exists.
If there is no test, then you are taking a position of faith, not scientific inquiry.

* Uri Geller fooled several scientists with common mentalist tricks. You really do need someone like James Randi to test for hoaxers and liars.

Hello Richard,

Like others on the forum, it appears to me that you are recycling skeptic talking points. Whether you have any corresponding knowledge of arguments in favor of psi is debatable. I have known people who claim to be familiar with the material but who cannot support the claim when asked for details. A very good friend of mine is like this. He was been working on experiments at CERN for about the last 20-25 years or so, knows James Randi, and is quite skeptical, though he has been a witness of some things that most people would describe as psi. He is careful to not describe them that way, but in a communication from a few years ago, admits that he knows enough of the facts regarding the incidents to know that none of the skeptic answers to them are valid (including the ones sent to him by James Randi). I was this way also until a preponderance of evidence forced me to admit that psi happens. Ultimately, I don't see anything wrong with skepticism, but do think that it becomes unhealthy when it prevents a person from engaging with available evidence, particularly when it comes in the form of personal experience.

The arguments you have posted here are hard to take seriously for anyone who has done any reading on the subject of parapsychology. This is because the very things you offer as weaknesses of the case for psi are dealt with ad nauseum in the literature. If anything, psi researchers bend over backwards to address the sort of complaints put forward by skeptics, but results continue to favor psi over other explanations. This is not easy to accept when the claims are 'extraordinary' as you say, and absolute proof is demanded. However, absolute proof, as others have noted, is not required in any branch of science. Instead, what is looked for is evidence suggestive of a proposed explanation despite gaps in the data.

In the case of parapsychology, the subject has been extensively studied under the assumption that some fraud occurs and thus vigilance is de rigeur. This is not normal in most disciplines where fraud is presumed to be absent unless some signs of it are discovered. This means that the standard parapsychology is held to is already more rigorous than other disciplines because it must first demonstrate that fraud didn't take place. After that, the next extraordinary demand is that some form of self-delusion hasn't taken place. With these two exceptional requirements dealt with, a researcher may proceed with their work. If, however, the conclusion supports psi, we see critics in the literature assume that fraud or self-deception must have occurred because psi is implausible on its face. This latter assumption creates the basis for logical arguments, such as your mention of Occam's Razor and the cliche 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence', but a logic-based answer is not based on evidence. This is where psi-proponents become very frustrated with critics. Parapsychology is based on evidence. Skeptics of parapsychology frequently use logic instead of evidence to argue against psi. Another alternative sometimes resorted to by skeptics is to use evidence that is unrelated to the question, such as studies of rat's brains getting linked to NDEs, when we have data on human NDEs but no data on rat NDEs due to a lack of communication from the rats. To make the leap that measurements taken from rats are the same as what is experienced by a person who has had an NDE--particularly a veridical one--is ludicrous.

A funny thing about this is that I had the notion for some reason that you might live nearby, so I checked your details, and see that your office is less than a kilometer away from mine, making me slightly curious if a conversation sometime might be of interest. In fact, if you walk across the street on Wednesday to see the Avengers premiere at the Chasse, you might bump into me.

Best regards,

AP
 
"I had a really vivid dream and you must believe it is true."

My grandfather had such a dream. He saw a group of people walking down a road and just a few people who got off the road to follow a separate path. At the end of the road was hell. He watched as hundreds of people fell screaming from the road into a lake of fire and brimstone. This inspired him to become a preacher and completely changed his life. This dream was so vivid that it reshaped his whole life, his family's life, and the lives of thousands of people he met over the following 45 years. By all rational scales, he was a jerk before this dream and a scrupulously honest and caring man after it.

Does this mean that it was real?
Richard,

I will spare you the rant about emergence as being a coherent statement regarding causal inference in actual physical or informational dispositions (or propensities). If you apply emergence to your above story or about brain activity in general - I think it is just an excuse for not having a logical and computationally predictive process model.

Look at your report of events above. Something actually took place that changed real-world probabilities for behavior. Dreams are an active part of a mental process model, where informational events are structured into meaningful long-term memory. Under the "materialist paradigm" personal character is a subjective idea and hence - not physically real. Yet pragmatically - it is an objective attribute about decision-making that is important evidence in legal venues. Your grandfather's character experienced a structural change from "deep-meaning" observed and assimilated mentally.

This is not to take the ridiculous stance that representative images projected by the unconscious are optically true. It is to say that an information structure was established in the decision-making capability of your grandfather's character due to information processing in a dream state.
 
If anything, psi researchers bend over backwards to address

With all due respect Andy, this, and much of the rest of your post, is a "talking point" approach to this subject. Not because I think psi researchers don't bend over backwards to address skeptic critiques - I think many do - but because backs can only stretch so far, and sometimes they are injured or straightjacketed, further limiting their mobility.

Even the best parapsychological research lines are plagued by:
  1. getting the funding to move from small scale, pilot level, high risk of error/bias studies to larger scale, confirmatory, lower risk of error/bias studies: that is, the studies that have the lower risk of bias are the most resource intensive, and parapsychologists rarely have the funding to perform such experiments. Limited resources will often prevent a researcher from achieving the most reliable results - the back can only bend so far.
  2. a subject matter that often presents distinct challenges in terms of experimental design that allows it to be isolated: it is exceptionally difficult to present a true psi/no psi controlled experiment. It is often just not possible to truly isolate "psi" (or be able to know if one has truly isolated psi). Researchers do the best that they can given that limitation, but this brings with it unavoidable risks of error - making the problem in (1) even more of an issue. This is particularly the case with comparisons to chance. There are various possibilities for a non-chance result, only some of which include psi. Parapsychologists do not often have the resources to test what they would if they had more.
  3. Parapsychology often involves topics that aren't easily amenable to controlled lab work - they often involve trying to capture experiential evidence that by its nature is spontaneous and often subjects can not be identified in advance.
Many (probably most) parapsychologists - if not many of their fans - recognize this - they regularly make statements related to it directly in their papers, and they write papers directly on this subject.

I agree with you Andy, when it comes to skeptics who blanketly shrug off parapsychological results. There is parapsychological work that has produced results that indicate that there could be something psi-like going on. But the reverse is also true - these studies should not be blanketly interpreted as confirming psi either. Most people - skeptic or proponent - who have really looked closely into these papers, and who have also read non-parapsychological papers on what factors in scientific studies produce the most reliable results - generally agree that parapsychology has some way to go before reliable conclusions can be drawn.

Note: we don't do any favours by framing this issue in terms of "responding to skeptical critiques" - this puts the focus far too rigidly on a relatively small group of parapscyhological critiques, who will have varying degrees of knowledge and understanding of methodological issues themselves. There is a large body of research on research methodology in other fields that often do a better job of focusing on the most important methodological concerns. If a reader here limits themselves to reading "skeptical critiques" they are going to miss a lot, imo.



I'm not asking anyone to take my word for any of this. Read the papers.
 
With all due respect Andy, this, and much of the rest of your post, is a "talking point" approach to this subject. (SNIP)

I won't discuss the individual points you make because it would only be confusing. What it comes down to is that your answers can only be justified in the context of specific types of parapsychology papers: those that look at psi as 'performance' in a demand situation. Although there are many successful studies of that genre, they tend to be based on statistics, thus leaving plenty of room for argument. Sometimes the argument isn't reasonable, but the room for it is there and gets exploited by detractors. Also note that I am essentially claiming that by the standards imposed on parapsychologists, absolutely nothing of any kind has ever been proven because it is not possible to do that absolutely. Therefore, your criticisms are misplaced.

AP
 
  • Like
Reactions: tim
I won't discuss the individual points you make because it would only be confusing. What it comes down to is that your answers can only be justified in the context of specific types of parapsychology papers: those that look at psi as 'performance' in a demand situation. Although there are many successful studies of that genre, they tend to be based on statistics, thus leaving plenty of room for argument. Sometimes the argument isn't reasonable, but the room for it is there and gets exploited by detractors.

My comments were not just geared towards performance on demand situations, but do include those.

Also note that I am essentially claiming that by the standards imposed on parapsychologists, absolutely nothing of any kind has ever been proven because it is not possible to do that absolutely. Therefore, your criticisms are misplaced.

You are under a misconception if you believe the research I was referring to advocates for an "absolute proof" standard. It does nothing of the sort. Quite the opposite.
 
My comments were not just geared towards performance on demand situations, but do include those.



You are under a misconception if you believe the research I was referring to advocates for an "absolute proof" standard. It does nothing of the sort. Quite the opposite.
I don't think it is accurate to say 'quite the opposite', but accept that you didn't intend 'absolute proof' to be the standard. However, the kind of studies you mention are the kind that are constantly attacked because they are usually statistically based and thus do not usually come across as convincing or reliable to people who are not well-versed in how the tests are conducted. However, I am long past trying to convince you of anything. I responded the way I did to Richard because he appears to be arguing from a position of naivete.

As you are aware, if acceptance of parapsychological explanations for various unusual phenomena was based on second-hand evidence alone, many fewer people would find the material convincing. Until you've seen it for yourself, it is difficult to appreciate that psi functions very much like the double slit experiment. That is, when observed, it behaves differently.

AP
 
You are under a misconception if you believe the research I was referring to advocates for an "absolute proof" standard. It does nothing of the sort. Quite the opposite.

My reaction was similar to Andy's when you said "Quite the opposite". Let me offer a thought-experiment. You are on an alien research team and have come to gather data about living things on earth. There is an existing theory that "nobody really understands anything" on this planet. So you are tasked to produce evidence of a process with specified variables, where understanding of phenomenal events occurs.

You are frustrated as there clearly seems to be evidence for it in a number of species; and in particular one that does appear to employ computation. Yet a process for this - is not apparent from the tissue area that is processing stimulus/response activity. It emerges without explanation.

My point is that there is no more evidence of a confirmed measured process for the capability to understand, hold in memory and abstract categorical relationships, then there is psi.

My guess is - that is because they are from the same root process.
 
I don't think it is accurate to say 'quite the opposite', but accept that you didn't intend 'absolute proof' to be the standard. However, the kind of studies you mention are the kind that are constantly attacked because they are usually statistically based and thus do not usually come across as convincing or reliable to people who are not well-versed in how the tests are conducted.

This is what I referred to above - if you confine your reading to "skeptical critiques" you're going to get a narrow view of how to interpret these studies - or rather, what limitations should be placed on their interpretations. You need to look outside of the field. On the other hand, you should also pay attention to what parapsychologists themselves have written in their own papers.

However, I am long past trying to convince you of anything. I responded the way I did to Richard because he appears to be arguing from a position of naivete.

All due respect, it is rare that you specifically address points that I've made, or engage in any extended back and forth. And while you tend to state things rather definitively, you might consider whether you might have your own blind spots about the research.

As you are aware, if acceptance of parapsychological explanations for various unusual phenomena was based on second-hand evidence alone, many fewer people would find the material convincing.

One can be convinced that psi is real and at the same time acknowledge that the research itself hasn't yet demonstrated it to a sufficiently reliable degree.

Until you've seen it for yourself, it is difficult to appreciate that psi functions very much like the double slit experiment. That is, when observed, it behaves differently.
AP

That's what I was getting at with my third point. Psi, if real, seems to have characteristics making it particularly challenging to achieve sufficiently reliable scientific results.
 
My reaction was similar to Andy's when you said "Quite the opposite". Let me offer a thought-experiment. You are on an alien research team and have come to gather data about living things on earth. There is an existing theory that "nobody really understands anything" on this planet. So you are tasked to produce evidence of a process with specified variables, where understanding of phenomenal events occurs.

You are frustrated as there clearly seems to be evidence for it in a number of species; and in particular one that does appear to employ computation. Yet a process for this - is not apparent from the tissue area that is processing stimulus/response activity. It emerges without explanation.

My point is that there is no more evidence of a confirmed measured process for the capability to understand, hold in memory and abstract categorical relationships, then there is psi.

My guess is - that is because they are from the same root process.

I'm not sure what you think I was saying by "quite the opposite". Andy thought that I, and the research I was basing my opinions on, demanded absolute proof. The opposite is true: neither I, nor the research on methodological bias I referred to, suggests that we should require a standard of absolute proof.

The research recognizes that there is risk of bias in research. The goal of this type of research is to identify methods that reduce the risk of bias as much as possible - but there will always be some risk. Absolute proof is not the goal of this research.
 
As usual, Arouet ignores everything else Andy wrote, and focuses on one single part of his reply. This is also typical of how Skeptics approach psi research. They ignore a bulk of empirical data that provides much veridical information, and focus on a sliver of what is provided, and then make biased and unfounded conclusions based on the sliver they have examined.

A few examples: rats and burst of EEG activity before they die. One medium is caught in fraud therefore all mediums are frauds. Any dream can be matched to some event, therefore no dreams are veridical.

This kind of typical thinking process of Skeptics gets tedious after awhile. You really do begun to believe these guys are a new kind
of fundamentalistic Jehovah Witnesses. They refuse to look at anything outside their Skeptical doctrine. And create strawman arguments
to justify their blind faith in materialism or atheism.

My Best,
Bertha
 
  • Like
Reactions: tim
I don't know. The Human Brain Project is, right now, trying to address this very question. I would be pretty surprised if it succeeded or if it failed. Because I am interested in learning new things.

I asked you the same question a while ago.
I asked you if this project succeeded, would you accept that consciousness is an emergent property of a complex system or would you deny by moving the goal posts and a) saying that this computer simulation is acting as some sort of 'consciousness' receiver or b) deny that it was really conscious?
If I was convinced that the program was genuinely conscious, then I pretty much would. I might take a bit of time to decide definitely (because AI can be a slippery concept) but it would pretty much do it!
I then asked what standard you would use to test for consciousness and then asked if the Turing test would be sufficient.
And I replied that the standard Turing test isn't comprehensive enough, and it doesn't really deal with programs like ELIZA. I'd also want to know something of what was inside, because consider this. Suppose someone cobbled together a chess program, and a checkers program, and an algebraic manipulation program, and a few more for good measure, It might be possible to give the impression of a high level general intelligence that could turn its hand to any task!
So, basically, we've just circled around each other.
Of course, we are talking about experiments that have not been done!
A repeatable test for any of the following: clairvoyance, mind projection, remote viewing, mind reading, telekinesis, or telepathy. All of which would show that the mind isn't 'trapped' in a brain.
This test would have to pass scientific muster and I would like it to pass a test for fraud by people who are good at fooling other people*
Why the emphasis on repeatability - providing the performance does not drop anywhere near chance levels that should be good enough. There really is a lot of evidence, and you could start with Rupert Sheldrake and his experiments with dogs. However, here is something by Michael Shermer - a man you probably approve of:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-that-can-shake-one-s-skepticism-to-the-core/

It is probably more typical of natural ψ events, in that it is much stronger, but spontaneous. I think parapsychology experiments tap into some of that, but in a weakened form because there is little or no emotional content in most such experiments. Sheldrake seems to have managed to reintroduce some emotion into his experiments, and he gets strong results. Of course introducing the real world always opens room for more quibbling.

Why not roam about on his website (always bearing in mind that he was a Director of Studies in biology at Cambridge University)?
That's it. If these phenomenon are clearly demonstrated, I would have no reason to deny them. Why would I?
Well things are never quite that simple. It you read a paper in chemistry and you really didn't believe the result, or didn't want to believe it, you could start trying to pick at the experimental details. You might ask if all the apparatus had been cleaned, and if so with what solvent. When you got the answer to that, you might ask what evidence there was that the solvent hadn't been polluted, etc. If all else failed, you might express doubt about the honesty of the author of the paper.

That is a caricature of the typical response to any research that shows evidence of ψ phenomena. The deep point is that ordinary science would collapse if the same standards were applied. Normal science works by accepting seemingly well conducted research on a tentative basis - with belief gradually hardening the more results accumulate.

However, I would ask you to identify if there is any test that would dissuade you from your position. You don't even need to tell us what it would be. I am only asking if you are self-aware enough to see if such a test exists.
If there is no test, then you are taking a position of faith, not scientific inquiry.
Acceptable levels of computer consciousness would do the trick, as already discussed. In fact back in the 1980's I assumed, like most people, that AI was close. It was the remarkably poor results from many heavily funded AI projects that contributed to my thinking again.
* Uri Geller fooled several scientists with common mentalist tricks. You really do need someone like James Randi to test for hoaxers and liars.

As I understand it, there is a video in which he seems to cheat - maybe more than one, I am not sure. However, people like that are put under insane amounts of pressure to perform. It is rather like the game we play on politicians in the UK - particularly education ministers - they get asked simple arithmetic questions like 6 x 9 in the middle of an interview. The mistakes are very funny, but given the stress they may not tell us much about their numerical competency. Does science really have to rely on magicians like Randi to decide if they are being hoaxed - I mean they have access to sound proof electromagnetically shielded rooms, and any amount of equipment!

How does anyone know if Randi is telling the truth - I don't think he is even required to perform the same 'trick' himself!

David
 
Acceptable levels of computer consciousness would do the trick, as already discussed. In fact back in the 1980's I assumed, like most people, that AI was close. It was the remarkably poor results from many heavily funded AI projects that contributed to my thinking again.
How is "acceptable" to be defined in this context. If a computer complains that it feels upset because someone shouted at it, would that be acceptable? I think we need to be clear on the difference between what is real, and what is a simulation of reality. A nuclear explosion can be simulated on a computer but it clearly isn't the same as an actual nuclear explosion.
 
Last edited:
How is "acceptable" to be defined in this context. If a computer complains that it feels upset because someone shouted at it, would that be acceptable? I think we need to be clear on the difference between what is real, and what is a simulation of reality. A nuclear explosion can be simulated on a computer but it clearly isn't the same as an actual nuclear explosion.
My belief is that consciousness will prove very hard to simulate - i.e. that a zombie that would behave like a conscious being without actually being conscious is an abstract idea that we don't need to bother about.

Therefore I feel generous about ignoring that distinction.

I think it is more important to make sure that AI can't be the result of a trick of some sort. For example, suppose Bob starts a conversation with an AI. Initially we have a conversation with just one component, so the AI simply looks on the internet for a conversation that matches the conversation so far (initially one element). Until the conversation has got some way in, it is entirely probable that the AI can find the same conversation on the internet - getting its reply from whatever it finds. This process isn't remotely AI (because the program understands nothing of what the program is about), but it just might fool someone.

Clearly if the computer merely engaged in histrionics, I would not treat that as evidence of consciousness!

I agree these things are tricky, but would you expect that you could interact with a robot for an extended period and not know it was one?

David
 
My belief is that consciousness will prove very hard to simulate - i.e. that a zombie that would behave like a conscious being without actually being conscious is an abstract idea that we don't need to bother about.

Therefore I feel generous about ignoring that distinction.

I think it is more important to make sure that AI can't be the result of a trick of some sort. For example, suppose Bob starts a conversation with an AI. Initially we have a conversation with just one component, so the AI simply looks on the internet for a conversation that matches the conversation so far (initially one element). Until the conversation has got some way in, it is entirely probable that the AI can find the same conversation on the internet - getting its reply from whatever it finds. This process isn't remotely AI (because the program understands nothing of what the program is about), but it just might fool someone.

Clearly if the computer merely engaged in histrionics, I would not treat that as evidence of consciousness!

I agree these things are tricky, but would you expect that you could interact with a robot for an extended period and not know it was one?

David
"would you expect that you could interact with a robot for an extended period and not know it was one?" this is where there needs to be clarity in what it is that is being discussed. If we are to not know that it is a robot, then presumably we might mean perhaps that we are convinced that it is a human. But other possibilities exist. What if we accept that it is definitely not human - in effect an alien - then how would we expect an alien being to behave? If there is no attempt to simulate human characteristics, then we really don't have any yardstick against which to measure. I think that would make the task of deciding what was its nature impossible, if it doesn't act like a human, that's understandable, because we already know it's an alien. But if it does act like a human, then how do we distinguish it from a simulation?

I really can't think of any trivial test, certainly the Turing test is woefully inadequate, the only valid tests I think would be in just those areas where humans are distinct from machines, for example maybe we could try testing for psi, or precognition, or ganzfeld experiments, or telepathy, or mediumship ... Or perhaps try powering it down and see whether it reports hovering over its body and observing from above ...
 
I'm not sure what you think I was saying by "quite the opposite". Andy thought that I, and the research I was basing my opinions on, demanded absolute proof. The opposite is true: neither I, nor the research on methodological bias I referred to, suggests that we should require a standard of absolute proof. Absolute proof is not the goal of this research.
Science is about models that are descriptive and predictive.

Absolute proof happens in the environmental space of abstract math theory. There is no sensible model from a "brain = mind and experience" paradigm. Without a model for how living things use understanding to purposefully shape real world probabilities to their favor it is flagrant hubris that there should be secure opinion that psi is supernatural And it is just not an example of a deeper-level natural understanding. There is nothing more than an assumption that understanding is a natural/physical process.

If science teaches us anything in the last 75 years - it's information is a natural part of reality. Why in the world folks think that is logical to project that what is called mental activity is physically based, is not called out as superstition, goes beyond my rational view. It is a serious failure mode of ancient thinking. To me - personally - its like a flat earth being declared obvious. Versus - there being a natural information processes that do predict what is observed in phenomenal reality

My experience-based worldview is absolutely sure that understanding and the sensations of deep-meaning go "beyond the cranium" and that its as natural as natural can be.
 
Back
Top