Life must include consciousness? Options

[Hey Hey]

why do so many people assume that computers will eventually assume some property analogous to human consciousness? how can anyone state this when we no certain understanding as to what consciousness is. having said that, of course we have some regular and limited hypotheses, or else I would not have proposed what I did. as new hypotheses are forwarded I am prepared to modify my proposal, though I maintain that the essence is and will remain appropriate. R there any biologists out there to add a considered critique? apologies if any responses above r from the same, but they seem to be from the physical side.

[Hey Hey]

and more

eventually
eukaryotic construct
with wow
such biochemistry

eventually
anthropomorphic android
with yes
cognisant mind

eventually
disembodied consciousness
with pain
at the speed of light

eventually
looking outward
with all
to know

eventually
looking inward
beyond all
and more

©2006 Hey Hey

[Rick]

why do so many people assume that computers will eventually assume some property analogous to human consciousness? ...

I think it's because so many people confuse consciousness with intelligence. For example, the Oxford professor of physics, Roger Penrose, in his book, The Emperor's New Mind, proved that computers can never be conscious and concluded that therefore computers can never be intelligent.

Computers are already intelligent (in some ways), but I agree that electronic digital computers will probably never be consious.

[Hey Hey]

Computers are already intelligent (in some ways), but I agree that electronic digital computers will probably never be consious.

Rick, enlighten us on the subject of why 'intelligent' does apply to some computers. How is the intelligence different/similar to our own?

[Rick]

Intelligent behavior is achieving goals. Therefore, any machine that performs as it should is exhibiting intelligence. Take for example the goal of selling merchandise. The goal is to get a fair price for an object of sale. Suppose you buy an item from a store. If the store clerk inspects the object, decides on the correct price, receives your ten pound note, and gives you the correct change, we might say that the store clerk is behaving intelligently. Right?

Now take the case of a vending machine. If the machine takes your money, delivers the right product and gives you the right change, and does it every time, we might say that in some cases it is actually more intelligent than some human store clerks.

Now take the case of being beaten at chess by a computer. If the machine beats you every time, can we say that the machine is more intelligent, when it comes to chess, than you are?

[maximus242]

hmm.. one the subject of life must include consciousness, lets hammer out a few key points

a. What is it to be conscious? Reality is defined by the interpritation of 5 inputs (senses), if one realizes the reality around them, they are theirfore conscious. However, if these stimulants were to be created by the brain itself, a reality could naturally exist entirely in ones own mind.

b. There was a article posted on Brain Meta a while ago that discussed a man who functioned in every way, except he had no conscious. He was living and breathing, being fed through a tube, but was alive non the less.

[Hey Hey]

hmm.. one the subject of life must include consciousness, lets hammer out a few key points

a. What is it to be conscious? Reality is defined by the interpritation of 5 inputs (senses), if one realizes the reality around them, they are theirfore conscious. However, if these stimulants were to be created by the brain itself, a reality could naturally exist entirely in ones own mind.

b. There was a article posted on Brain Meta a while ago that discussed a man who functioned in every way, except he had no conscious. He was living and breathing, being fed through a tube, but was alive non the less.

a. OK, but we have to get basic and allow the term to have some meaning and boundaries or else we are stuffed, as with most issues. I mean, what is life, for example, the fundamental basis of the whole proposal here?

b. When one dies it is possible to utilise tissues and organs for quite some time for purposes of donation. This is because the cells in those tissues are still alive. Your last comment is getting off track. Unless you believe that, for example, leucocytes have consciousness. Then I find it difficult to explore this proposal with you.

[maximus242]

hmm its hard to say Hey Hey, I mean there are so many fundamental points that have yet to be answered. What is it to be alive anyways? being declared legally dead and actually being dead seem to be two very diffrent things. Not only that but the brain remains active about 20 days after the body dies, is one dead then or what? I wonder if the question "Life must include consciousness?" can even be answered because it is difficult to even pinpoint "What is life?" and "What is consciousness?"

[BatineAcid]

One thing we do need to be aware of in a discussion of this sort is anthropocentrism, and when trying to discuss something as diverse as life or consciousness, we must, IMO, get away from this paradigm. I feel there are definitely other forms of consciousness. One preconception I've noticed in this discussion is the idea that consciousness implies self-awareness. I believe this is a false preconception. I know that my cat is conscious because she has all the basic superficial biological requirements to form an awareness of her environment, ears, eyes, etc etc. And I know that she has memory based on conditioning. I also don't think she is any less alive than you or I regardless of whether or not she is self-aware.

One concept that I have come to embrace is that consciousness is a biological phenomenon. Consciousness is an intrisic aspect of things that are alive. This implies that any organisms that interact in the physical universe have some sort of awareness, or consciousness. This concept does require a more open understanding of consciousness. But like someone said earlier in the thread, we should be looking for an understanding of consciousness, rather than dwelling on making a concrete definition of it.

...many questions can be raised when one tries to think of a tree as concious.

I don't know anyone who claims plants are conscious.

I'll go ahead and claim that. Plants are conscious. Their subjective experience is much different than that of the humans, however, I do believe they are conscious.

why do so many people assume that computers will eventually assume some property analogous to human consciousness? ...

I think it's because so many people confuse consciousness with intelligence. For example, the Oxford professor of physics, Roger Penrose, in his book, The Emperor's New Mind, proved that computers can never be conscious and concluded that therefore computers can never be intelligent.

Computers are already intelligent (in some ways), but I agree that electronic digital computers will probably never be consious.

Robots and computers, however, don't react to the physical three dimensional environment that we live in. They run tests of meaningless symbols against other meaningless symbols, and give us a result of a meaningless symbol that we interpret. Computers are nothing without our input, and then interpretation of their output. They are completely dependent on us for their "intelligence." Going back to my cat: She can, as a conscious being, subconsciously calculate the trajectory of a bird in flight, jump at the exact right time, and catch the bird, without any training or input from a human. That is more intelligent than any computer that currently exists. And we consider cats to be fairly unintelligent creatures. Perhaps there is a certain perceived intelligence that is inherit in the complexity of life. The more complex, the more intelligent? Dunno. Maybe its the other way around. Sorry,,, tangent there.

Intelligent behavior is achieving goals. Therefore, any machine that performs as it should is exhibiting intelligence. Take for example the goal of selling merchandise. The goal is to get a fair price for an object of sale. Suppose you buy an item from a store. If the store clerk inspects the object, decides on the correct price, receives your ten pound note, and gives you the correct change, we might say that the store clerk is behaving intelligently. Right?

Now take the case of a vending machine. If the machine takes your money, delivers the right product and gives you the right change, and does it every time, we might say that in some cases it is actually more intelligent than some human store clerks.

Now take the case of being beaten at chess by a computer. If the machine beats you every time, can we say that the machine is more intelligent, when it comes to chess, than you are?

Maybe more consistent, rather than intelligent? A computer's ability to interpret symbols with perfect consistency with a far greater rate than humans, to me, does not imply intelligence in anything except the people who designed the machine.