So then, it doesn’t sound like you believe in non physical realities outside of consciousness.
I disagree, and I think there are a ton of issues with that position. But this is really it’s own topic, I don’t want to derail this thread too much. Perhaps one of us could start a topic.
Locked in syndrome person is not a right example to learn about the nature of being conscious.
The person is obviously in the syndrome due to some abnormal condition in the brain. It is not wide spread or anything to do with the standard human mental or biological conditions we see in the world.
Just because some machines are programmed to carry out some simple actions doesn’t prove they are conscious. My phones are installed with some smart apps for doing some intelligent stuff, but I would never even imagine the phones are conscious.
For that matter, even the full blown AI chatbots cannot be conscious.
They lack the bodily gestures and facial expressions, which are part of the critical sign of being conscious, even if they can respond with the stored chat scripts.
Maybe they could be equipped with the machine programmed facial and bodily expressing capabilities in some form or appearance of the robots to look as if they are being conscious.
However, you can detect the unnaturalness of the performance, which tells something is not quite adding up, if you have sharp observing eyes. And the fake consciousness in them can be detected immediately.
I didn’t say any living biological organisms are not conscious. They could be conscious in the low level which enables them finding food and move to their comfort area for their survival.
If you want to call that level of interaction as consciousness, that’s fine. But you are not going to have any meaningful conversation with them for sure.
This sounds like putting the cart before the horse. PLants are alive though folks wouldn’t call them conscious.
Again you sound like you are making a lot of assumptions here. WE don’t understand consciousness or how it’s made, so it’s possible for anything to be conscious. We just assume living things are such because they fit our definition of it.
Plants are alive, but do they show sign of consciousness?
No assumptions at all. Just being rational and basing my points on the observed reality.
Popularity generally means more support for it. Psychological continuity is the more popular view because of many factors (including the latent dualism in much of our thought process). But again “no continuity” isn’t an argument, in fact I’d call it “not even wrong”. There is clearly continuity, to what degree however is the question. I told you that “no continuity” was not an answer to the teleporter.
Because that’s what it is. It’s not a proposition. Not to mention there is no reason to believe it. Like I said, people have made counter arguments, you just aren’t listening.
That is a very liberal definition of concrete then.
It is certainly of great concern to the one who is killed, regardless of whether it’s me or my clone. But that’s a different question. I’m just talking about identity. Whichever one dies, it’s me. I think my point is better made with the replication chambers that I mentioned recently. Original goes into one of two chambers. Do something so that nobody, original or audience, knows which chamber the original entered. Both chambers open, and identical people walk out of them. Which is the original?
There is no way for anyone - original, clone, or audience- to know. And it doesn’t make any difference. If we ever found ourselves with this technology, we shouldn’t be concerned with figuring out which is the original which is the clone. We should be concerned with finding a way to treat them both the same.
Let’s say one of them dies immediately after coming out of the chambers. Maybe a meteorite hit him. Would the wife and kids be concerned with whether they are going home with the original or the clone? They shouldn’t. There’s literally no difference.
That would be great. Please do I think it should be you, since you have specific things in mind. I’m not at all opposed to the idea. I just don’t know of any such things
That is all we can observe on consciousness in the reality.
Saying anything more than consciousness is the mental quality of life would be making a lot of assumptions.
Can you explain what the mental quality of life is? I’m wondering two things:
If living things that don’t have, or can’t demonstrate, your definition of “mental quality” are conscious.
If an AI, if it can demonstrate your definition of “mental quality”, is conscious, despite not fitting your definition of life.
Merely specifying a situation where it doesn’t matter isn’t an argument that it doesn’t. You have to show that it doesn’t matter in all situations, which is much harder.
I gave you one such situation where it does seem to matter, given your scenario. The original is offered 5k to undergo cloning. Or, he may elect for the clone to receive 1m instead. Once cloning is done, neither know which is the original.
Which is the rational choice?
Mental quality is the quality of mental states or interactions
which are observable by other conscious beings, which is also the sign of life, biologically living and conscious being.
I don’t believe AI is conscious even if they exhibit the sign of mental quality, because AI mental quality is unnatural.
Human consciousness is natural in that it is the product of biological evolution, and therefore is natural.
I’ve shown that, in regards to identity, it doesn’t matter. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter in regards to murder. Different topic. Make a dozen clones. If you kill one, thinking no big deal because you still have the original plus eleven clones, it’s murder.
Right. But are all mental states or interactions conscious states or interactions? What I mean is, do “mental” and “conscious” mean the same thing?
Or are there mental states or interactions that are not conscious?
Ok. I understand. So behavior, alone, is not proof of consciousness. Only behavior of entities that are there result of biological evolution.
Mental states and interactions which are observable by others are the sign of being conscious for the biological beings.
Your mental states can only be noticed by others by your interactions with others. So if you show no signs of interaction, then how could other folks know you are conscious?
Yes. Maybe some folks may not agree with that point. But personally I believe that the term consciousness is for the biological beings only.
For AI and machine intelligent behaviours, some other term could be used such as machine implemented assistant - MIA? How is that?
MIA for machine implemented assistant for the machines which perform intelligent works for assisting humans? So your phone could be MIA, but it cannot be conscious.
I understand. But are there interactions that are not signs of consciousness? Or is all interaction, possibly all behavior, proof of consciousness?
Some behaviours may not be the sign of consciousness. If you pretend to be sleeping, when asked how you are. Then they may be thinking you are unconscious. But you know you are conscious. If you know you are conscious, then even if others doesn’t know you are conscious, you are conscious.
Even if you were pretending to be sleeping, soon they will find out you were pretending, and actually you are conscious.
Your consciousness is the mental product of your history from your birth, growing up and learning all the social and academic knowledge and customs too.
It is not something that was copied over from someone else last night, computer chip embedded into your head or implanted by brain transplant.
Oops. I corrected “intersections” to “interactions” in my previous post.
You gave an example of how consciousness can exist without interacting. I’m asking if the reverse - interacting without consciousness - is possible.
Not quite. If you think about it, even non interaction is a type of interaction.
If you were told not to speak, or do anything by your wife for half an hour, and if you followed that request, then it might be seen as no interaction, which was an interaction.
Interaction depends on the context of situation i.e. being able to understand the situation and responding appropriately.
Interaction doesn’t mean always waving your hands, and shouting something or laughing loudly when it is not appropriate for the situation.
@Corvus
How can an observer tell the difference between non-interaction and not speaking or doing anything as ordered by the wife?
The observer can tell it by observing the situation via inference and guessing. Or if in doubt, can ask you or your wife on the situation of the non-interaction which was actually interaction.