A Footnote to “Why I Am Not a Materialist”

But none of that has to do with your statement that consciousness starts to develop in the fetus. Even if consciousness started when a baby was born, and thus no longer a fetus, those things would be true. It doesn’t really have anything to do with your statement…which is good, because it doesn’t really make sense.

The second sentence in that paragraph starts with the phrase “a lot of people think…” That’s the ‘who’. I thought that would be implied.
The people who think the things I said they think, is who. Is that clear enough?

As for it being ‘obvious’, it was the way you said it – you just said it in passing, as if it would just be accepted. “Oh yeah, that’s true, no need to go into detail on that one.”

Well, first of all, ‘uniqueness’ has absolutely 0 to do with algorithms. I can write an algorithm that nobody else has written before, it’s unique. I can string together a whole bunch of algorithms in a way nobody has done before, it’s unique. Uniqueness doesn’t preclude algorithms in the least. That’s just a bizarre argument, nothing relevant to the issue at hand.

And I don’t know that it can be reduced, maybe it can’t be, I’m just saying don’t talk about it like it’s obviously not the case, just in passing. It’s a big statement, not something that’s just going to be accepted if you say it in passing.

Thank you for your illuminating response, I shall accord it the weight it deserves in later considerations.

Didn’t want to get into a distraction.

Fair enough, but if it’s relevant to materialism/philosophy of mind, it seems on topic.

I’ve yet to see any reason to believe robots are any more conscious than an automated calculator.

If people want to say something is conscious, that’s fine. When they do, I want them to define consciousness, clearly illustrate how said something meets the criteria and what else meets the criteria.

I have a strong feeling that many only question the properties of robots because the impressions they make.

Consciousness: Remote Recognition

Liz,

No, I don’t agree that “consciousness starts to develop due to the senses”, since I think the senses themselves are forms of consciousness and, further, can’t exist independently of a more general mental framework within which visual appearances have some meaning. I think the evolution of the senses is the same evolution as the evolution of consciousness. To be clear, there is nothing in my view, then, that fundamentally precludes AI – in fact, AI already exists. Thermostats are conscious. But it’s important to remember that AI is of a very different kind (in other words, the difference in degree is mind-bogglingly enormous) than natural, evolved, biological organisms for many significant reasons. I don’t know if it’s theoretically impossible or not, but it’s very hard to imagine a constructed robot giving birth. On the other hand, though, a “robot” in the old fashioned sense is just that – old fashioned, not very sophisticated. Now we have genetic engineering, synthetic implants, etc. It’s not necessary to construct something “from scratch”, there is also the “chip away at it” approach. Is someone with a synthetic heart less human than others? Chalmers’s silicone neuron replacement idea (it’s often referred to as the fading qualia thought experiment) is very interesting in this regard, though it doesn’t prove anything either way. Something worth thinking about, though.

Like you, I don’t think scientists can create a human brain. But I don’t think it’s because of anything ontologically special about human brains. A human brain is an evolved organ, not a constructed machine. Again though, you can look at this philosophical issue from a different angle.

Consciousness requires that there is “something it is like”. Seeing the color blue is a conscious experience. The entire visual spectrum, without exception, can be described in black and white, but that doesn’t mean that the entire visual spectrum is black and white. Similarly, we can describe thermostats as conscious, but that doesn’t tell us anything about what it is like to be a thermostat. So yes, every being is unique, concrete. But there is nothing concrete about “consciousness”, which is an abstraction. Experience is concrete, unique; consciousness is just an umbrella term for what all experiences generically consist of – a subject and an object, arising simultaneously. Interdependently.

I’d add though, that I highly doubt thermostats have a sense of self, lol.

I’ve tried to find my original sources re fetal sensory development, but couldn’t–this, however, says pretty much the same things:

http://birthpsychology.com/free-article/fetal-senses-classical-view

If, as I said, consciousness starts to develop when the senses start to develop in the fetus, is it fair to say that sensory data has a great deal to do with consciousness? Yet sensory data are physical, aren’t they? To me, it’s reaction to the data–and the memory of that reaction–that becomes phenomenal, and that makes each mind unique. There’s more to it than that, but that’ll suffice for now.

anon, I’ve thought about a totally artificial person, but I think the complexities of the human body, not just the mind, are such that it won’t be possible at any time in the near future. Even with the miniaturization of a lot of the parts (electrical, optical, etc.) it would end up pretty big, imm. Just think about the skin–our largest organ–and all of its functions–even with neuromorphic silicon neuron circuits which have already been developed.

FJ, Imm a lot of people think the metaphor of ‘mind as a computer’ is fact rather than metaphor. But the metaphor has only been used to illustrate how some workings of the mind/brain can be understood–imaged, if you will. If I felt my statement needed more explanation, it would only be an explanation or definition of ‘metaphor’. Other than that, you’re quibbling–mostly about language. You have all my good wishes for success in your studies.

anon, If you “…don’t think it’s [a created human brain] because of anything ontologically special about human brains.” Yeah, the human brain is an evolved organ–all brains are. Are you saying that the human brain is no different than the simian brain? Then what makes us ‘other’ than apes?

It doesn’t mention the word ‘unique’ once in that article.
Nor the word ‘conscious’.

I have a hard time believing it says ‘pretty much the same things’ if it’s not even using similar language.

Nobody said anything about consciousness not relating to sensory data.

This is the problem: you’re making a total nonsequitur. You’re still making a total nonsequitur the same as you were the first time you brought up uniqueness.

Now, I’m not arguing about whether or not consciousness arises in a fetus, or earlier, or later.
I’m not arguing about whether or not people or their minds are unique.

I’m arguing that your incredible leap of logic, going from “Consciousness arises in a fetus” to “therefore every mind is unique” is nonsensical. It’s a total nonsequitur.
And now, the leap is “Reaction to the data is phenomenal, and that makes each mind unique.” It’s just as nonsensical as the other leap in logic.

You’ve spent a lot of words trying to explain how uniqueness follows, but you haven’t explained anything.
An explanation takes us from point A to point Z, by going through all the intermediate steps.
You’ve gone through no intermediate steps.

Eg I say, “I got a text from Angelica, that means she’s at the zoo.”
If you don’t know Angelica, or anything about our situation, that might seem like a nonsequitur.
So, in order to explain it to you how I go from “Angelica texted me” to “she’s at the zoo,” I say, “Oh, Angelica told me she’d text me right when she gets to the zoo and not before.”
And now my logic makes a lot more sense.

You haven’t connected A and Z yet, at all. You haven’t connected the statements “Consciousness starts in the fetus” and “every mind is unique.” You haven’t connected the statement “Reaction to data is phenomenal” and “every mind is unique.” You’re just stringing sentences together and hoping some of them make sense. That’s not really a good method for making sense.

Liz, just a partial response for now, for lack of time…

First, it seems like maybe you’ve changed your story. Before, you said consciousness developed “due to” the senses, where now you’re saying they develop together.

Also, I don’t believe we will ever create human beings through artificial means. But that’s not what I’ve argued.

And I do think humans are different from chimps. I’m not sure why you brought that up.

I’m curious by the way - would you say that a sense of self is a necessary aspect of consciousness?

I don’t mean to ignore everyone else, by the way. Just low on time at the moment.

Does anyone take issue with my initial argument?

That is at best an argument for plausibility, not probability.

To me, this isn’t even an issue. It is like arguing that an automobile could never go faster than a horse.
My concern for the whole thing is the extreme and fatal danger of creating such an AI, not that it couldn’t be done.
It already has been. People just don’t know it.

First, I believe I posited my statement as a conditional–“If you believe…” or as a question–“Do you believe…”

Whatever. I have no desire to quibble.

Consciousness starts to develop as a result of the (“due to”) development of the senses. I believe this is true. If it were possible for a human to be born without any of the senses, would it be ‘human’–even animal–or would it be a blob?

Consciousness is a lot more than individual reactions to sensory data. If I didn’t say that in this thread, I’ve said it in others.

Consciousness, depending on what you think consciousness is, is learned and involves the gradual acquisition of self-awareness–ego. Humans aren’t born with ego–but humans aren’t born fully developed–we’re only born with the physical tools needed to develop and interpret our sense reactions, and our consciousness.

But, hey, all I’m trying to do in this thread is explain why I’m not a materialist.

The ‘mechanics’ of the mind/brain may be explained neurologically–but the way the mind translates–the how the mind translates has yet to be understood.

anon, please stop using company time and a company computer to ‘play’ on ILP. Bosses don’t like that–it cuts into company profits.

For the plausibility of what? Of materialism? Of AI?

I don’t mind the tangents at all, but to be clear my OP was about one very specific thing - that simple incredulity regarding how mental stuff could be caused by physical stuff, because it just doesn’t seem intuitively possible (mental stuff seeming to be so unlike physical stuff) doesn’t make for a compelling argument against materialism. It may seem like a miracle of some sort that such a thing could happen, but it is no less miraculous that a ball, kicked, flies through the air. But that latter we have seen happen, many times. So we accept it as one aspect of how the world works. Why? Because we see it work that way.

That’s fine, Liz. I’m just trying to understand what you are saying. It’s funny - unlike you, I don’t think the development of consciousness is caused by prior development of the senses. But I don’t understand that last sentence (question). My thought is, can you imagine the existence of the human eye, without the presence of human consciousness? That’s why I think the development of the senses and the development of consciousness are the same development. They flower together - the development of a particular human life from its embryonic form is a flowering.

I’m not sure how to answer your question (would it be a blob?). I can imagine a human being without the traditional senses, but I follow most Buddhist teachings in counting “the mind” as its own sense organ. Call it a sense of internal “touch” - the mind senses its own architecture. This might take some explanation:

A human being isn’t a mere arc from birth to death. A human life doesn’t have an absolute beginning and end (we could differentiate between “beginnings” and “origins” here, if it helps). Genetically we are an extension of our ancestors, and we are born into a culture of attitudes and ideas that we likewise inherit and pass on. Genes and memes. If a human being can be born without the senses - no sight, no smell, no taste, no touch, no sound… he might still have a functioning mind, because there are mental contents that don’t depend on the information that the senses in this particular life have collected. As to what that would be like - I have no idea. But I think it would be like something. It’s like with that brain in a vat idea. You can’t account for the existence of brains if you think of them as “in vats”, whatever that could possibly mean (doesn’t “vat” just mean context? I never really understood what this was supposed to mean), but you may be able to take a particular brain and put it in a vat (some kind of nourishing fluid I guess, rather than a normal body and context) - and there will be experience. Can’t guarantee the practicality of all this of course - this is just theory.

I’m fine with that. Given that definition, I don’t believe thermostats are conscious. Definitions can be narrower or wider depending on what you’re trying to say. If it helps, feel free to post a standard definition of consciousness that you’d like to commit to, and I’ll stick to that definition as well.

That’s fine. I’m not a materialist either. But not every argument against materialism is a good one, in my opinion.

In some ways, I don’t think we understand anything, including the things we think we understand. This is actually the heart of my OP. Do you understand why kicking a ball results in it flying through the air? My claim is that you don’t. It’s just what happens. And there are complex patterns of things that just happen, that we can describe using simple abstractions (equations, for example), which we can then use to predict things, invent things, etc. That’s kind of a linear presentation of course - in reality we can often predict things before coming up with the abstraction that accurately describes why we can make the prediction. Etc. Also, and I brought this up before in this thread, explanations can apply to everything, but they aren’t sufficient to account for everything. The entire visual spectrum without exception can be explained as shades of black and white, but this explanation is not sufficient to account for color. Likewise, physical explanations can be applied to your mental world, without exception. But physical explanations are not sufficient to account for your mental world. I think this is important to sort out: one mode of explanation is insufficient to encompass reality, yet it is not incredible that one mode of explanation can apply to all reality.

I was referring to that bolded statement.

The issue is resolved merely by understanding what a “mind” is.
IT is very analogous to hardware versus software.
In the software world/ontology, the hardware is somewhat ignored. An ontology of software objects (“thoughts”) is formed and used without regard to the hardware that made such a thing possible.

The brain and mind are very similar. The ontology regarding a mind (the functioning of a nervous system) can ignore the “wetware” that makes it possible until you try to merge the two with the notion that either one or the other must be “true” and question the connection between them. Software and hardware engineers have that exact same problem wherein the other seems totally magical.

anon, If you’re a non-materialist because of your Buddhist teachings, that puts you ‘apart’ from me, since I have no such background. I may end up saying any number of things with which you won’t agree.

If a baby was born without any of the five senses (btw, an impossibility,) would it be a blob? I think so. First of all, the fetus wouldn’t have been able to establish any neuronal pathways needed to transmit sensory data to the brain. As a result, there would be no continuation of those pathways within the brain, hence, no way to react to sensory stimulation.

If reaction to sensory stimulation leads to experience, and if experience leads to knowledge, and if knowledge leads to consciousness, how could something without a nervous system (reaction to sensory stimulation) ever achieve consciousness?

The syntax of our language doesn’t lend itself to simultaneousness. (If that’s not a word, tough–it is now.) Our language is linear–sense development isn’t. Please keep that in mind.

Among the many organs developing in the fetus is the skin. With skin, the fetus develops the sense of touch, motion, warmth, discomfort, etc., which, when repeated, is knowledge.

I think of this as the beginnings of consciousness. While it’s ‘awareness,’ it isn’t ‘self-awareness’ which is developed after birth.

A lot of what I think of as consciousness has to do with knowledge–acquisition, storage, and memory–which comes from reaction to sensory stimuli. Watch a baby in a high chair. She’ll do a lot of things in order to learn concepts. Now, dropping a pea off the tray and watching it fall may not teach her gravity, but it does start to teach her the concept of gravity. A young toddler will kick a large ball and be delighted when the ball is ‘magically’ transported to a different location.

There are certain things a baby can’t learn without parental intervention. Color differentiation, for example. The care giver has to teach the baby this is red, or blue, or green. But that’s just teaching the baby labels.

In summation, then, my definition of prenatal consciousness is the ability to respond to sensory data, to learn from that response, and to remember that response.

 Yes, but singular consciousness is just another receiver of many such singularities. Unless you are looking at consciousness as a singularity, yes this makes sense.  However alternative singularities (parellelisms) do exist, and they do give justice to the idea that human beings act as receivers to consciousness at large.