365: The Mind is a computer

Many people who work in the cognitive science and in the philosophy of mind think that the most exciting idea of the past generation, indeed of the past two thousand years, is that the mind is a computer program.

Specifically, the idea is that the mind is to the brain as a computer program is to the computer hardware. John Searle has baptized this view as "Strong Artificial Intelligence".

John Searle, born in 1932 and still alive and active, is noted for his contributions to the philosophy of language, philosophy of mind and social philosophy and teached at Berkeley in 1959.

In the previous lecture we learnt that a computer is a symbol manipulating machine and in the real computers of today, the machine uses only the symbols "1" and "0".

When a computer has to solve a problem, it uses an algorithm. An algorithm is a systematic procedure for solving a problem in a finite number of steps.

This all is controlled by a set of rules. For example you can have the rule "If condition C , then do A", which could be in real "If complex symbol "1111" occurs, replace it by "0000".

Now suppose we put a computer with a specific program on subject X in an room and an expert on the subject X in another room.

Then we let experts outside the room type in questions on a console. Both, the computer and the man in the room, can answer the questions.

This test, named the Turing Test, claims, that if the experts, who ask the questions, cannot distinguish the behavior of the computer from that of a human, then the computer has the same cognitive abilities as a human.

It would mean that the computer is as good as the human expert on subject X. Or in other words, the computer does the same as the mind of the human expert, understanding the questions and answering them correctly.

This is odd. A computer is a symbol manipulation device according to a given set of rules. Whatever the symbols means, doesn't matter. If you use the proper algorithm you get the solution of any problem.

Is that how our mind works? Is it indeed like a computer program a symbol manipulating system? This question has raised a battle in the philosophy of mind due to the famous Chinese Room argument as formulated by John Searle.

It is like this: you sit in a room with a bunch of boxes in which you find cards with Chinese characters on them. You have no understanding of Chinese at all.

But you have a book with rules, telling you things like "when you receive symbol X and Y, then return as an answer symbol P from box 2"

Outside the room there are chinese speaking people who send you their questions. You use your book of rules and return the appropriate symbols, which show to be the correct answers.

It means, that you passed in principle the famous Turing test, but you would not thereby understand a single word of Chinese.

If you don't understand Chinese by using a book of rules and manipulating symbols, neither does any digital computer using its algorithm.

However, when asked a question in English, you do not get a set of complex symbols, nor do you look up a number of rules to manipulate them.

When I ask you whether the earth is flat or a sphere, you can give an answer, because the words 'earth', "flat' and "sphere' have a meaning. And your answer is based on empirical facts.

And that is what a computer never can achieve, adding meaning to the symbols it manipulates and in some respects that is one of its powers, to be absolutely mindless.


The Discussion

[13:23] herman Bergson: Thank you ㋡
[13:23] Sybyle Perdide: great
[13:23] Sybyle Perdide: as alway
[13:23] Sybyle Perdide: s
[13:23] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:23] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:23] Farv Hallison: Thank you, herman.
[13:24] herman Bergson: Conclusion....computers never can have a mind
[13:24] agnos: Thanks
[13:24] Bejiita Imako: ed thats how it is, everyone who have written a computer program can see that
[13:24] Farv Hallison: But both stories sidestep the issue of defining what the mind is.
[13:24] herman Bergson: no Farv...
[13:25] Bejiita Imako: simple things like playing music requires the computer to for each sequence of the song do a complex series of instructions every time and loop millions of times per second the same instruction over and over
[13:25] herman Bergson: A mind does more than a computer does...
[13:25] Bejiita Imako: it can never learn it by itself
[13:25] Elle (ellenilli.lavendel) is Offline
[13:25] herman Bergson: a computer only shuffles symbols around according a bunch of rules
[13:25] herman Bergson: a mind ads meaning to symbol....a mind has content
[13:25] agnos: But we seemed to have developed into having a mind
[13:25] Bejiita Imako: its like if we would never learn the notes but always have a paper to look at
[13:25] Farv Hallison: The rule might generate new computer programs.
[13:26] Mistyowl Warrhol is Online
[13:26] Farv Hallison: a dictionary can add meaning to words.
[13:26] herman Bergson: maybe..but they do the same as all computer programs…shuffle symbols around without any understanding
[13:26] Bejiita Imako: yes indeed
[13:27] herman Bergson: Yes..that is what we did with our mind
[13:27] herman Bergson: Just look how crude the translators work....even the best....
[13:27] Bejiita Imako: a computer cpu is just a bunch of millions of small sort of light switches that opens and closes in a specific way to the program code
[13:27] Farv Hallison: well, a computer could have a dictionary of meanings and even make new entries
[13:27] Bejiita Imako: because the cpu is designed in hardware so that a specific sequence of 1 and 0 will cause those switches to flip
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: its nothing more than that
[13:28] herman Bergson:a computer can have a database, Farv..but We have to fill it
[13:28] Sybyle Perdide: may I play advocata diaboli?
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: the compiler that translate the c or basic code must have knowledge about the basic construction of the cpu
[13:28] herman Bergson: sure Sybyle
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: thats how you program in assembler
[13:29] CONNIE Eichel: ^^
[13:29] Sybyle Perdide: the problem of the computer is, that the rules are only on a single dimension
[13:29] herman Bergson: hold on Bejiita....plz ㋡
[13:29] Bejiita Imako: then you must know registers address locations and everything about the basic hardware to communicate with the machine
[13:29] netty Keng is Offline
[13:29] Sybyle Perdide: the human pc has many layers of rules
[13:29] Sybyle Perdide: smelling, looking, feeling and so on
[13:29] Farv Hallison: I like the smelling
[13:29] bergfrau Apfelbaum is Online
[13:29] herman Bergson: Oh yes....I even left that feature our on purpose...
[13:30] Lizzy Pleides: our brain influences sympaticus and parasympaticus, it influences if you feel well or not, how can a computer feel well?, can he feel anger fear or love?
[13:30] Farv Hallison: The computer could have a chemical lab that acts like a nose.
[13:30] herman Bergson: No Farv....
[13:30] herman Bergson: unfortunately not...
[13:31] herman Bergson: the chemical lab produces only data as in put which are just symbols for the computer
[13:31] herman Bergson: then it has its algorithm to analyze the data
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:31] Netty Crystal is Online
[13:31] herman Bergson: you find such computers to analyze gasses for instance in many laboratories
[13:32] herman Bergson: But the machine has no understanding at all of the meaning of its output
[13:32] herman Bergson: It is our mind that adds the semantics to the charts and numbers
[13:32] Bejiita Imako: and basically a computer have only a specific set of fixed instructions it can understand, the compiler in for example c must translate the c code to these basic commands and thats all the commands the cpu will ever understand untill a new model arrives with more instruction sets
[13:33] Sybyle Perdide: but we don't know either, why an how we react on chemical signs
[13:33] Bejiita Imako: tats why a computer can never at least not as they work now feel or sense
[13:33] Sybyle Perdide: we just started to analyze it
[13:34] herman Bergson: Well the idea of a sensory computer with understanding of its sense experiences is a Science Fiction idea
[13:34] herman Bergson: Take Data form Startrek for instance...
[13:35] herman Bergson: The funny thing with him was that he could play Bach on a cello, but couldn't put feeling in it
[13:35] Farv Hallison: good point. I can't put feeling into it either.
[13:36] herman Bergson: So the scenario writers stayed close to the symbol shuffling of a computer
[13:36] herman Bergson: Data had a brother Farv.....
[13:36] herman Bergson: Looks curiously at Farv
[13:36] Farv Hallison: oh?
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: star trek data?
[13:36] herman Bergson: Yes
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: yes he had a brother
[13:36] herman Bergson: But that brother was the bad guy is one of the episodes
[13:36] Janette Shim is Offline
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: who was kind of evil programmed i think
[13:37] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:37] Farv Hallison: Could the brother play with feeling?
[13:37] herman Bergson: Well....
[13:37] herman Bergson: that is a good question Farv....for that brother really wanted evil....
[13:37] Farv Hallison: Can you be evil without having evil feelings?
[13:37] herman Bergson: which is an emotional choice
[13:38] herman Bergson: It is always fun to see how in SF they have to struggle with a computer with a mind...
[13:38] herman Bergson: especially when the thing gets its own feelings and ideas
[13:38] Bejiita Imako: and thats also a thing, can you make a computer program so that it for some unforeseen reason turn against you like in terminator
[13:39] herman Bergson: That is way beyond what a computer really is and will be in the future
[13:39] Bejiita Imako: i don't think so cause then you must have deliberateley programmed it to kill you and who does that?
[13:39] Bejiita Imako: a computer only does what you tell it to
[13:40] Farv Hallison: well, the computer might control the power grid and give itself more power when it feel is it circuits slowing down.
[13:40] Joann Innovia (kimkiddy) is Offline
[13:40] Bejiita Imako: even if you can make a computer program take in data from outside and "learn" i dont' think that a machine that is made for good suddenly by external input could go berserk
[13:40] Bejiita Imako: and kill you
[13:40] herman Bergson: Yes Farv...that is what it in SF movies always does....
[13:41] herman Bergson: but it only can do so when programmed that way....
[13:41] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:41] herman Bergson: Greatest fun is always when they in a movie never get the idea to simply pull the plug
[13:41] Bejiita Imako: hehe yes, thats rule nr one
[13:42] herman Bergson: weird thing is then when you approach the plug and outlet the computer attacks you :-)
[13:42] Farv Hallison: 2001 pulled the plug.
[13:42] Bejiita Imako: ALL machines no matter what it is should have an emergency stop or a mean to cut the power as soon it loose control
[13:42] herman Bergson: True Farv..indeed......he removes all those red objects one by one..
[13:43] Farv Hallison: but the computer might be running our life control system, so we can't shut it down.
[13:43] Bejiita Imako: but well i may bee hard to get to the plug of the opier machine if it chases you around the office meanwhile
[13:43] Bejiita Imako: lol
[13:43] Bejiita Imako: copying
[13:43] herman Bergson: lol Good one FArv...
[13:43] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): aardlekschakelaar:)
[13:43] herman Bergson: When we pull the plug here SL ceases to exist and we all are gone....:-((
[13:44] CONNIE Eichel: yes :/
[13:44] herman Bergson: So, we are defenseless against our computers!!!!!
[13:44] Farv Hallison: yes, the police might pull the plug if we start to demonstrate.
[13:44] herman Bergson: We are all trapped inhere!!!!!
[13:44] CONNIE Eichel: hehe
[13:44] Farv Hallison: We are trapped in the Matrix/
[13:44] herman Bergson: Yeah..Let's OCCUPY SL !!!!!
[13:45] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): lol
[13:45] Bejiita Imako: well we still exist as code but the code need an active cpu to run so you can say we are like viruses in sl, a virus ( biological) needs a living host, its just a bunch of dna as our avatars just is code that need a powered on cpu and memory to operate on
[13:45] herman Bergson: Well...thank you all for your participation again...
[13:45] Lizzy Pleides: thanks to YOU herman
[13:45] Farv Hallison: this has been great fun.
[13:45] Bejiita Imako: yeah
[13:45] Bejiita Imako: really nice
[13:45] Sybyle Perdide: yes
[13:45] Guestboook van tipjar stand: Lizzy Pleides donated L$50. Thank you very much, it is much appreciated!
[13:45] Bejiita Imako: \o/
[13:45] Bejiita Imako: || Hoooo!
[13:45] Bejiita Imako: / \
[13:46] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:46] herman Bergson: a painful observation that we are trappe din here and cant pull the plug unless we want to kill ourselves...
[[13:46] Farv Hallison: ㋡
[13:46] herman Bergson: I hope you all can live with that ㋡
[13:46] Bejiita Imako: but behind the avatar is still a real person who control it
[13:46] CONNIE Eichel: hehe
[13:46] Bejiita Imako: my avatar doesn't do anything my rl self don't tell it to
[13:46] Bejiita Imako: its operator
[13:46] herman Bergson: That real person might survive then Bejiita...
[
[13:47] Bejiita Imako: its an interesting thought for sure
[13:47] herman Bergson: Thank you all and dont be afraid of thinking computers..they dont exist
[13:47] Bejiita Imako: just machines
[13:47] CONNIE Eichel: :)
[13:47] Farv Hallison: I wont do anything my tail wouldn't do.
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: and machines only do what you tell them, unless some dangerous bug is in the code
[13:48] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ㋡
[13:48] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): *•.¸'*•.¸ ♥ ¸.•*´¸.•*
[13:48] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): Goed Gedaan Jochie!!
[13:48] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): .•*♥¨`• BRAVO!!!! •¨`♥*•.
[13:48] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): ¸.•*`¸.•*´ ♥ `*•.¸`*•.¸
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: and that bug is then telling the machine to do wring things
[13:48] Farv Hallison: All code has bugs
[13:48] Lizzy Pleides: clap clap clap...wohooooooo!
[13:48] CONNIE Eichel: great class, as always :)
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: Hooo!!!
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: Hoooo!
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: yeah
[13:48] herman Bergson: smiles
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: liked it a slot
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: ok cu all
[13:48] herman Bergson: thank you ㋡
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: lot
[13:49] Farv Hallison: bye Bejita
[13:49] Sybyle Perdide: bye Bejita
[13:49] Bejiita Imako: cu soon
[13:49] CONNIE Eichel: bye bye, see you next class :)
[13:49] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:49] herman Bergson whispers: Bye CONNIE
[13:49] Lizzy Pleides: Tc Connie
[13:49] Farv Hallison: bye Connie
[13:49] Sybyle Perdide: ciao Connie
[13:49] CONNIE Eichel: bye :)

335: The materialist Brain 3

To be called a materialist with respect to your metaphysical interpretation of reality has been like a curse for many centuries.

Of course this finds its roots in the fact that materialism was regarded almost synonymous with atheism. You see the same happen with regard to the concept of matter itself.

I am not sure, whether there is a relation with that other meaning of the word "materialist", meaning "a tendency to consider material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values.", according to the online Oxford Dictionary.

It looks like there is a connection in the fact that theistic or spiritual values are not much supported by materialism.

But as I said in the previous lecture, materialism has made considerable progress over the past century, particularly among educated European peoples.

There seem to be a few reasons for this development. One reason is, that there has been a decline in those aspects of religious conviction that involve appeal to providential or satanic interventions in the course of events.

This is due to the fact that many have lost the belief in an intervening god or devil in this world. Earthquakes, climate change or pestilence, for example, are not attributed to nonmaterial, supernatural forces.

Another reason we already have discussed extensively, which you could call "biological materialism": the discovery of the biochemical mechanisms involved in neural functioning,

and their links to psychological processes, so that it is now taken for granted that thinking, feeling, and the will are subserved by the nervous system, and can be altered by making physical changes by the use of drugs or electrodes.

Again another reason, which you could call "medical materialism": diseases are not caused by a punishing god, witchcraft, curses and the like, but by viruses and bacteria.

We have developed a strong belief in the possibilities of medicine. Every illness can be cured and if this is not yet the case, we believe that medical research eventually will find a material cure.

Sometimes I get the feeling, that this medical materialism has replaced the religious beliefs. We get strongly imprinted that our health is the ultimate good on earth, almost meaning "When you are healthy, you are happy!"

And this is all based on a materialist and mechanistic concept of health. When the body(machine) is properly maintained all will be well. Thus jogging has become the contemporary way of praying ( ^_*)

A final reason can be that recent years have witnessed an astonishing expansion in the range and sophistication of the mental tasks that digital machines can perform.

Not only remembering, recalling, and calculating, but pattern recognition, estimation processes, problem solving, and learning new skills,

skills, which hitherto have been the exclusive preserve of living, conscious beings, are now routinely performed by electronic devices that, unless panpsychism is true, are purely physical structures.

This has lead to an increasingly common assumption that mental activity is a special kind of physical process, which even suggests the question "Will a computer eventually become conscious?"

Of course materialism is not THE ontological answer, but it offers a comprehensive, unified account of the nature of reality that is economical, intelligible, and consistent with the most successful of the sciences.


The Discussion

[13:16] herman Bergson: Thank you....
[13:17] herman Bergson: Allow a 2 minutes break so that Soussine and Carmela can read the notecard/text of this lecture before we start our discussion...
[13:17] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:17] herman Bergson: Thank you
[13:17] Sousinne Ceriano: Thank you =)
[13:17] Carmela Sandalwood: TY
[13:17] Bejiita Imako: ok
[13:17] Carmela Sandalwood: I'm good
[13:18] herman Bergson: ok..
[13:18] herman Bergson smiles
[13:18] Sousinne Ceriano: done
[13:18] herman Bergson: The floor is yours then....
[13:18] Bejiita Imako: Even if a computer gets more and more advanced i don't think it can ever be conscious
[13:19] Carmela Sandalwood: / what's to prevent a conscious computeR?
[13:19] Bejiita Imako: cause all a computer does do by calculating binary numbers
[13:19] Carmela Sandalwood: and all we do is by chemical reactions...so?
[13:19] Doodus Moose: yes - we'd need a whole different architecture
[13:19] Sousinne Ceriano: If it can't, Bejiita, how can we be conscious?
[13:19] Bejiita Imako: thus see only 1 and 0 surent and no current
[13:19] herman Bergson: We will get to that subject Bejiita when we discuss the chinese Room argument of John Searle..
[13:19] herman Bergson: He is at your side
[13:20] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): computer can all do what humans can do
[13:20] Mick Nerido: The study of the material world is becoming more metaphycial like with Dark matter and dark energy
[13:20] Doodus Moose: Chinese Room - consider also the Turing Test
[13:20] druth Vlodovic: if pure materialism is true then we aren't really conscious
[13:20] Carmela Sandalwood: why not? consciousness is simply an awareness of surroundings
[13:20] Sousinne Ceriano: druth: That won't be true until you can say we understand the nature of consciousness.
[13:20] Bejiita Imako: t when this happens millions of times per second that the computer can create everything almost but yet its just binary math at very high speed done by billions of switches
[13:20] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): humans can chinese room only, they haven't a consciousness
[13:21] Carmela Sandalwood: well, humans do it with millions of neural connections...so?
[13:21] herman Bergson: Let me give you John Searle's arguments about consciousness again
[13:21] Doodus Moose: neural connections self -program
[13:21] Mick Nerido: If materialism is true than atoms could be conscious
[13:21] herman Bergson: I think it is the best answer to the mind body problem so far...
[13:22] herman Bergson: No no Mick...not that fast
[13:22] Bejiita Imako: ut ht is some kind of chemical process and we have receptors for that, but for a computer that would mean that you had to do complete new way of constructing them i think
[13:22] Carmela Sandalwood: I'm not convinced the Chinese room doesn't understand Chinese
[13:22] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): john searle is irrelevant
[13:22] Mick Nerido: well have the potential for it built in
[13:22] herman Bergson: Ok....plz..listen.....
[13:22] Bejiita Imako: so that it can indeed feel something
[13:22] herman Bergson: Plz...a moment of silence...!
[13:22] Bejiita Imako: and also computers need to do it by math while we interpret it directly
[13:23] Bejiita Imako: sound pictures ect
[13:23] herman Bergson: How to understand the relation between consciousness and matter....
[13:23] herman Bergson: Take a glass of water....
[13:23] herman Bergson: the water is liquid….
[13:23] herman Bergson: Liquidity is a property of that water....
[13:24] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): humans cant understand substainable
[13:24] herman Bergson: but we can not seperate the liquidity as something on its own from the water
[13:24] herman Bergson: it means...
[13:24] Carmela Sandalwood: liquidity is a type of interaction of the molecules in the water
[13:24] Sousinne Ceriano: "sustainable" means "unchanging". What a magnificent world where stasis is seen as the highest goal for all humanity.
[13:25] herman Bergson: the h2o molecules create that state by being in a certain state...
[13:25] herman Bergson: so..liquidity is caused by these h2o molecules....
[13:25] Bejiita Imako: yes by moving around and binding in between those for ice and steam
[13:25] Carmela Sandalwood: its the interaction, not the molecules themselves
[13:25] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): incorrect sous
[13:26] Sousinne Ceriano: Right, Kraftwerk.
[13:26] herman Bergson: but we can not pick out a h2o molecule and say..look this is a liquid one...
[13:26] Bejiita Imako: slow movement = ice fast movement steam
[13:26] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): humans are so annoying
[13:26] Bejiita Imako: and alson the molecule mmovement is same as heat
[13:26] Carmela Sandalwood: not quite Bejiita
[13:26] herman Bergson: thus the brain operates too....
[13:26] Mick Nerido: water = liquid as brain = consciousness?
[13:27] Sousinne Ceriano: I completely agree with you there, Kraftwerk. =)
[13:27] Bejiita Imako: meaning for ex that microwave energy is converted directly into heat when interacting with water in the food
[13:27] herman Bergson: the material processes in the brain cause consciousness
[13:27] Bejiita Imako: its not friction cause the actual molecule vibrations are the heat
[13:27] herman Bergson: save us the details Bejiita :-)
[13:27] Bejiita Imako: hehe
[13:27] Bejiita Imako: thats how it is
[13:27] Sousinne Ceriano: I read a brilliant book some time ago... "I am a strange loop" by Douglas Hofstadter.
[13:27] herman Bergson: So the brain causes consciousness...
[13:28] Carmela Sandalwood: But the question is *how* the brain causes consciousness
[13:28] herman Bergson: Like h20 molecules cause liquidity
[13:28] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): consciousness is an esoteric concept of our anthropozentric religion
[13:28] Sousinne Ceriano: His view was that consciousness is a product of self-reference.
[13:28] herman Bergson: the how question is just a scientific question...
[13:28] Carmela Sandalwood: it bothers me to say the H2O molecules 'cause' liquidity...
[13:28] herman Bergson: we have our neurobiology and physics and thus can find out
[13:28] Carmela Sandalwood: it's a strange use of the word 'cause'
[13:29] Sousinne Ceriano: I am inclined to agree with him. The way to make a "stale" system of thought is to banish self-reference.
[13:29] herman Bergson: Ahhh Carmela…
[13:29] herman Bergson: That is really a good point.....
[13:29] druth Vlodovic: sci-fi authors pard the term down to "self-aware" machines a long time ago
[13:29] Bejiita Imako: the speed of movement causes the liquidity, the value of it
[13:29] Mick Nerido: consciousness is purely a material process not spiritual
[13:29] herman Bergson: Since Hume we have a peculiar idea of causality...
[13:29] Sousinne Ceriano: Once you accept it, the system grows in ways we don't have good words to explain.
[13:29] herman Bergson: billiard ball causality I call it
[13:30] Carmela Sandalwood: the speed and the degree of interaction is what is associated with the macro-scopic state of liquidity
[13:30] herman Bergson: you have event/object A that causes event/object B
[13:30] Carmela Sandalwood: Hume was better than Aristotle on causality
[13:30] Sousinne Ceriano: But from the earliest moments, every human is faced with an environment containing a very special object: themselves.
[13:30] herman Bergson: Two seperate events...
[13:30] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): humans act like billiard, but they dont can realised it by itself
[13:30] herman Bergson: but that is a very narrow idea of causality....
[13:31] Carmela Sandalwood: right…liquidity and the molecules are not separate things
[13:31] herman Bergson: on the one hand you have H2O molecules...
[13:31] herman Bergson: on the other hand you have liquidity...
[13:32] herman Bergson: That is aristotelian thinking...but nonsense if you regard liquidity ontologically as a separate entity or property
[13:32] herman Bergson: Liquidity exists ONLY if H2O molecules are in a certain condition
[13:32] Carmela Sandalwood: Well, what defines liquidity? Preservation of volume, ability to flow, etc
[13:32] herman Bergson: The mind exists only...when there is a brain
[13:33] Carmela Sandalwood: A number of different chemicals can have liquid states...at various temperatures and pressures
[13:33] herman Bergson: yes...only variations on the theme
[13:33] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:33] Carmela Sandalwood: So the question is whether a silicon structure can 'cause' a mind also
[13:33] herman Bergson: But there is one philosophically important issue here
[13:34] druth Vlodovic: I think the point is that "consciousness" is an effect, not a thing in it's own right
[13:34] herman Bergson: saying that the brain causes the mind...
[13:34] herman Bergson: or consciousness...
[13:34] Sousinne Ceriano: If the silicon can do the same things, it will be just as conscious.
[13:34] herman Bergson: doesnt tell us a thing about WHAT consciousness is...
[13:34] Carmela Sandalwood: Right, but if we could get another example of the phenomenon, we would have an easier time defining it :)
[13:35] herman Bergson: Sillicon can't do the job Sousinne...
[13:35] druth Vlodovic: maybe a better question is if computers can eventually make their own choices
[13:35] druth Vlodovic: though many people don't think that people can,
[13:35] Carmela Sandalwood: why not herman?
[13:35] Sousinne Ceriano: How come?
[13:35] herman Bergson: Searle pointed that out pretty clearly in his Chinese room Argument....google for it :-)
[13:35] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): silicon can do it far better
[13:36] Carmela Sandalwood: And I disagree with Searle on that
[13:36] Doodus Moose: Sous - assuming consciousness is synapse-based, silicon junctions can't do the sam ething
[13:36] herman Bergson: Computers are symbol shuffling machines...
[13:36] herman Bergson: our mind isnt....
[13:36] Sousinne Ceriano: How come?
[13:36] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): chinese room is antropzentric nonsense
[13:36] herman Bergson: Our mind adds semantics to the symbols...
[13:36] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): Goodevening
[13:36] Carmela Sandalwood: Well, one difficulty is that we are thinking of computers as non-interactive....look more at the advances of robots lately...much closer to what is required
[13:36] Sousinne Ceriano: Whatever consciousness is, it is a product of shuffled information.
[13:36] druth Vlodovic: what the heck is an anthropzen?
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: yes made of silicon but its not the silicon itself, its the dopant substrate that conduct current and performs binary math
[13:37] herman Bergson: I think you have to come up with a better counter argument Kleine
[13:37] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): google it with the right spelling ^^
[13:37] Bejiita Imako: just raw number crunching nothing conscious there
[13:37] Carmela Sandalwood: how do you know Bejiita?
[13:37] Sousinne Ceriano: And for us: just raw chemical shuffling, nothing conscious there?
[13:37] Carmela Sandalwood: efine what it means to be conscious first...then we can see if computers qualify
[13:37] Bejiita Imako: I know the basics behind cpus and know how they are made and works
[13:38] Carmela Sandalwood: so do I...and I also know the basics for neurons
[13:38] herman Bergson: I don't agree Sousinne....
[13:38] Sousinne Ceriano: Who said anything about a computer?
[13:38] Sousinne Ceriano: I said a silicon structure.
[13:38] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): humans do only crude statistic operation in his little neuronal network.
[13:38] herman Bergson: Our chemical shufflling in the brain causes consciousness
[13:38] Carmela Sandalwood: we are carbon based structures with some water, and a few other chemicals
[13:39] Sousinne Ceriano: Yes, professor, BECAUSE information gets spread in certain patterns.
[13:39] Carmela Sandalwood: and why can't that chemical shuffling be mimicked by computers?
[13:39] herman Bergson: yes Carmela....and with some remarkable features
[13:39] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): its not a question by the materials at first, they don't understand it
[13:39] herman Bergson: consciousness is one of the features our our material construction :-)
[13:40] Carmela Sandalwood: just like other chemicals can be liquid, why can't other structures support consciousness?
[13:40] Doodus Moose: bingo
[13:40] Bejiita Imako: something cause conscious ness yes and its electrical signals so in someway might be possible but i have a hart time to see how todays construction of a computer can be because the e way they work
[13:40] Sousinne Ceriano: Unless you mean to say that there are certain chemicals that cause consciousness, you are going to have to deal with the idea that all our brains do is shuffle information
[13:40] Bejiita Imako: just switching current on and off like a light switch
[13:40] Mick Nerido: Why is there consciousness at all?
[13:40] herman Bergson: Good question Carmela...but a scientific one...
[13:40] herman Bergson: not a philosophical one...
[13:40] Carmela Sandalwood: agreed....but as a philosophical question, is there a barrier?
[13:40] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): consciousness is a other believe system like human god believe sytsem
[13:41] Sousinne Ceriano: No... it is not about belief.
[13:41] herman Bergson: Why is there consciousness at all.....? Not a meaningful question in my opinion
[13:41] druth Vlodovic: the chinese room argument seems to be saying that computers can't be conscious because their hardware can't have understanding
[13:41] herman Bergson: Then you also can ask...Whey are there trees at all?
[13:41] Sousinne Ceriano: Consciousness is a subjective experience, not any sort of system of thought
[13:41] druth Vlodovic: but isn't understanding a software problem?
[13:41] Carmela Sandalwood: consciousness exists because information processing makes it more likely that living things will reproduce
[13:42] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): our consciousness is dead like our god. think monkeys!
[13:42] herman Bergson: no druth...it is a matter of semantics...
[13:42] herman Bergson: computers aren't able to add meaning to the symbols they shuffle..
[13:42] herman Bergson: our mind does that
[13:42] Doodus Moose: nor respond to them emotionally
[13:42] Carmela Sandalwood: that i am not so convinced about...what is meaning in this context?
[13:43] Carmela Sandalwood: emotionally is just another form of information processing
[13:43] Bejiita Imako: no they arent a computer can not understand what it does
[13:43] herman Bergson: That is why translation programs are so clumsy...like google translate for instance
[13:43] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): humans don't know the meaning of its own acting. thats why the will die out next time
[13:43] Carmela Sandalwood: ever talked to a three year old? all sorts of grammatical mistakes
[13:43] Bejiita Imako: what the program i wrote really does it cant see that it is a game second life or whatever
[13:44] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): if you dont like our programs don't use them ;-P
[13:44] Bejiita Imako: it just switches its current on and off in different binary patterns
[13:44] Ciska Riverstone: but own language you do no longer understand carmela ;)
[13:44] druth Vlodovic: but computer programs are asked to act upon the symbols, when they are given instructions, so the meaning of an abstract symbol becomes, say, movement
[13:44] Sousinne Ceriano: If it had consciousness, maybe it would, Bejiita.
[13:44] Carmela Sandalwood: none of my neurons understands english...but the whole structure of my brain does
[13:45] Mick Nerido: At what point is life conscious?
[13:45] herman Bergson: the action on symbols is applying rules Druth
[13:45] Sousinne Ceriano: Maybe meaning, emotions, all those things we see as being human, maybe they all require consciousness?
[13:45] Bejiita Imako: maybe but that would require a completely different way of constructing a cpu than just millions of on and off switches
[13:45] druth Vlodovic: to humans meaning is a matter of "what do I do with this?" or "How does this mesh with previously accumulated meanings?"
[13:45] Carmela Sandalwood: Bejiita: I think that main difference is we need more interaction of the silicon structures with the 'real world'
[13:45] herman Bergson: Of course Sousinne...!
[13:45] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): humans aren't a real life form
[13:46] Bejiita Imako: yes something like that
[13:46] Bejiita Imako: and also as said computers need to take the way over mathematics while we can interpret directly
[13:46] Carmela Sandalwood: consciousness comes from interaction with an environment, using the information collected by the senses
[13:46] Sousinne Ceriano: And thus, you need to solve the issue of consciousness BEFORE you tap into emotions and meaning... it also means neither is necessary for consciousness.
[13:46] Doodus Moose: so, my hamster is conscious?
[13:46] Julie Bluebird (lolli.bluebird): :)
[13:47] herman Bergson: To some extend yes Doodus
[13:47] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): hamsters and humans haven't a consciousness
[13:47] Carmela Sandalwood: where do we put the line for consciousness? bacteria? lizards?
[13:47] herman Bergson: It will be conscious of pain when you torture it
[13:47] Doodus Moose: +when+
[13:47] Sousinne Ceriano: not if
[13:47] Sousinne Ceriano: =)
[13:47] herman Bergson: It will not have the ability to say to you "I am in pain"
[13:47] druth Vlodovic: my car is "conscious" of a low oil condition
[13:48] Carmela Sandalwood: and bacteria move away from noxious stimuli
[13:48] Sousinne Ceriano: No... your car is nothing of the sort.
[13:48] Carmela Sandalwood: with micro-computers in cars, it might be
[13:48] druth Vlodovic: it can react to it, by lighting a warning light
[13:48] herman Bergson: Your car is a 100% causally operation mechanism Druth
[13:48] Doodus Moose: ...but that's not consciousness
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: if not the oil level just trigs a switch connected to a computer programmed to send current to 2 leads leading to a warning light, those 2 lights could be connected to whatever
[13:48] Sousinne Ceriano: Whether machines will be capable of being conscious or not, they are not currently able to be conscious.
[13:49] Carmela Sandalwood: and I do tend to agree the car is not conscious...but the term is ambiguous
[13:49] Julie Bluebird (lolli.bluebird): Souisinne - how would we know?
[13:49] herman Bergson: Welll Doodus..that is the whole point regarding animal rights...
[13:49] druth Vlodovic: if I burn my hand I'll retract it, in fact, it would take conscious interference to avoid doing so
[13:49] herman Bergson: Descartes believed that animals were just plain machines...no mind at all
[13:50] Sousinne Ceriano: Lolli: Enough analysis and we will know EVERY signal there is in the car's electrical system.
[13:50] herman Bergson: We now know that animals can experience stress and fear....
[13:50] Sousinne Ceriano: It is eminently predictable and not one bit of it will generate any sort of consciousness.
[13:50] herman Bergson: Even have emotions!
[13:50] Carmela Sandalwood: experience....
[13:50] Sousinne Ceriano: A nut is not conscious because I throw a rock at it to make it fall down from a branch
[13:51] Carmela Sandalwood: ok, how do we know they experience anxiety? or emotions?
[13:51] herman Bergson: Soem animales even have a self conscious...recognize themselves in a mirror
[13:51] Bejiita Imako: an interesting thing is plants
[13:51] Sousinne Ceriano: Measurements of stress hormones
[13:51] Bejiita Imako: are they conscious
[13:51] Sousinne Ceriano: No.
[13:51] Carmela Sandalwood: so if a computer shows the signs of emotions and stress, is it conscious?
[13:51] Sousinne Ceriano: They don't even have any sort of nervous system.
[13:51] Bejiita Imako: they are alive but can they think or have a mind
[13:51] Sousinne Ceriano: No
[13:51] herman Bergson: no Bejiita...stop that ...:-)
[13:51] Bejiita Imako: no because unlike us they are just a bunch of independent cells with no brain
[13:52] Sousinne Ceriano: If a computer shows signs of stress, get a new one before it breaks down. =)
[13:52] Carmela Sandalwood: not independent...plants are 8very* interconnected
[13:52] herman Bergson: Plants can interact with their environment..yes...
[13:52] Bejiita Imako: in some way it seems indeed
[13:52] herman Bergson: respond to a nice rain or suffer under a hot sun...
[13:52] Bejiita Imako: cause as said
[13:52] Bejiita Imako: they are alive
[13:52] Carmela Sandalwood: how about a robot that has been programmed to work in an environment? if it shows stress, is it conscious?
[13:53] herman Bergson: that is a whole different matter...
[13:53] Mick Nerido: Any complex enough brain can be conscious because the atoms and molecules have the potential to behave that way
[13:53] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): humans can't interact with there environment
[13:53] Sousinne Ceriano: A robot would need to be self-referential for that to happen.
[13:53] Sousinne Ceriano: It would need to relate to ITSELF.
[13:53] Carmela Sandalwood: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1czBcnX1Ww
[13:54] herman Bergson: Yes mick..therefore some animales can be attributed consciousness....even self awareness
[13:54] Carmela Sandalwood: Big Dog: conscious or not?
[13:54] druth Vlodovic: I wonder if the term "conscious" isn't obfuscating
[13:54] Sousinne Ceriano: Showing a mimicked symptom of stress doesn't help
[13:54] herman Bergson: Ok Druth....I know.....:-)
[13:54] herman Bergson: We'll deal with is in coming lectures in detail ^_^
[13:54] Bejiita Imako: the stress in the robot is stull just programmed math
[13:55] Carmela Sandalwood: and is *our* stress just un-programmed math?
[13:55] Sousinne Ceriano: Until such a time as the robot can consider its own situation.
[13:55] herman Bergson: No Carmela...a robot never shows stress...
[13:55] Carmela Sandalwood: and they do now....they work with information to adjust their behavior
[13:55] Mick Nerido: A robot could be made of carbon and be organic like people
[13:55] Sousinne Ceriano: And not just seeing its environment
[13:55] Bejiita Imako: we feel directly without calculating numbers, a machine cant do that at least not yet
[13:55] herman Bergson: its program shuffles symbols according to given rules...
[13:56] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:56] Carmela Sandalwood: herman: I disgaree.....look at the video of Big Dog being pushed over....
[13:56] Carmela Sandalwood: or being on an icy road
[13:56] Sousinne Ceriano: We feel because billions of neurons toggle chemicals on or off.
[13:56] herman Bergson: so it may simulate behavior we would call stres sbehavior
[13:56] Carmela Sandalwood: is that Descartes argument against animals?
[13:56] herman Bergson: It is programmed to respond like that
[13:56] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): nobody need the humans species on that planet
[13:56] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:57] herman Bergson: We could discuss the need of your presence here Mr. Kleine..:-)))
[13:57] druth Vlodovic: so you can be considered "conscious" if you can do things you are not programmed for?
[13:57] Julie Bluebird (lolli.bluebird): smiles at herman :))
[13:57] Carmela Sandalwood: modern robots respond 'creatively' to new situations
[13:57] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): YES i know human fascism well
[13:58] Bejiita Imako: yes and can interact with directly and not just go through numbers
[13:58] herman Bergson: ok ok..hold on...
[13:58] Bejiita Imako: we hear sound see pictures and so a machine se just 1001001101010101010101
[13:58] Carmela Sandalwood: I'm not convinced our neurons don't just 'go through the numbers'
[13:58] herman Bergson: Is my computer conscious ...willl be one of the subjects of coming lectures
[13:58] Ciska Riverstone: the question is how they get the numbers they go through Carmela
[13:59] Carmela Sandalwood: through their sensory inputs...just like us
[13:59] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): you will only not see the conscious of a computer or other species cause its different to human conscious
[13:59] herman Bergson: We cant deal with all such complex questions and observations with just a few general remarks or arguments
[13:59] herman Bergson: so..patience plz....
[14:00] Ciska Riverstone: the sensoric will have to be programmed too Carmela
[14:00] herman Bergson: Today I only gave you some reasons why materialism has become a widely accepted ontology
[14:00] Carmela Sandalwood: and ours is pre-programmed by genetics
[14:00] Ciska Riverstone: but we program the computers carmela
[14:00] Doodus Moose: i'm always suspicious of things that make too much sense
[14:00] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): ciska computer programs tier sensorik by learning it self today
[14:00] Carmela Sandalwood: so we need genetic robots?
[14:01] Ciska Riverstone: after patterns we gave them kraftwerk
[14:01] Ciska Riverstone: we predefine
[14:01] herman Bergson: Well...Thank you all for this very good discussion....
[14:01] Carmela Sandalwood: thank you herman
[14:01] herman Bergson: feel free to continue...
[14:01] Ciska Riverstone: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[14:01] herman Bergson: but ...
[14:01] herman Bergson: thank you all
[14:01] Bejiita Imako: interesting as usual
[14:01] CONNIE Eichel: great class :)
[14:01] Bejiita Imako: VERY
[14:01] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ^_^
[14:01] Bejiita Imako: :9
[14:01] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[14:01] herman Bergson: Hey CONNIE
[14:01] Mick Nerido: Nice class
[14:01] CONNIE Eichel: hi :)
[14:02] herman Bergson: didnt see you come in!!!!
[14:02] CONNIE Eichel: :)
[14:02] Ciska Riverstone: thanx herman- bye all
[14:02] Bejiita Imako: ok cu ㋡
[14:02] CONNIE Eichel: i stayed in silence :)
[14:02] Soniah Beaumont: thanks
[14:02] Soniah Beaumont: :)
[14:02] Carmela Sandalwood: what happens if we replace every neuron in our system by a silicon module that does the same thing?
[14:02] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): human philosophy sound like moo moo
[14:02] CONNIE Eichel: hehe
[14:03] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[14:03] Julie Bluebird (lolli.bluebird): Thank you herman.
[14:03] Doodus Moose: Carmela - two _totally_ different architectures
[14:03] Carmela Sandalwood: <--definitely a materialist
[14:03] CONNIE Eichel: well, till next class, jazz time fo me :)
[14:03] herman Bergson: Then you should not attend this class Mr.Kleine
[14:03] Sousinne Ceriano: Carmela: Yay!
[14:03] Carmela Sandalwood: so? why is that relevant doodus?
[14:03] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): YES humans never learned by other species.
[14:04] Doodus Moose: neurons can "learn" by connecting in various patterns. silicon is 'fused' into non-changeable patterns
[14:04] herman Bergson: Envy you CONNIE!
[14:04] Carmela Sandalwood: if the reactions are the same, will the new construct be conscious?
[14:04] CONNIE Eichel: :)
[14:04] Carmela Sandalwood: it is possible to modify things so that the strength of the connection changes over time...
[14:04] Sousinne Ceriano: Doodus: She said that it would work the SAME way.
[14:04] Bejiita Imako: aFPGA circuit can be programmed to change its internal structure but still olny programming
[14:04] CONNIE Eichel: kisses you all :)
[14:04] Doodus Moose: ..but by architecture , it can't (yet)
[14:04] herman Bergson: Yeah!!!
[14:04] herman Bergson: :-)
[14:05] Doodus Moose: :-)
[14:05] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): even rats will survies the homo sapiens. rats adaped to radioactivity and global warming
[14:05] Bejiita Imako: ok need to head on
[14:05] Carmela Sandalwood: TC Bejiita
[14:05] druth Vlodovic: we need to start cross-breeding with rats immediately
[14:05] herman Bergson: That is a triviality Mr. Kleine
[14:05] Sousinne Ceriano: One good thought experiment: If you could teleport somewhere, by making a copy and destroying the original, would you want to go?
[14:05] Bejiita Imako: time to scare the neighbours unconcious with a little Qwark Psy
[14:05] Bejiita Imako: lol
[14:06] Doodus Moose: llIInduceLobotomy(key, status);
[14:06] Bejiita Imako: cu soon again ㋡