thesumofparts
Very interesting debate about God, evolution, free will, consciousness and death.
Daniel Clement Dennett is a prominent American philosopher whose research centers on philosophy of mind, philosophy of science and philosophy of biology, particularly as those fields relate to evolutionary biology and cognitive science. He is currently the co-director of the Center for Cognitive Studies and the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy at Tufts University. Dennett is also a noted atheist and advocate of the Brights movement.
Robert Wright is an American journalist, scholar, and prize-winning author of best-selling books about science, evolutionary psychology, history, religion, and game theory, including Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny, The Moral Animal, and Three Scientists and Their Gods: Looking for Meaning in an Age of Information. He is a visiting scholar at The University of Pennsylvania and Schwartz Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation.
Source
Robert Wright interviews Daniel Dennett (4 of 8)
I'm sorry, but what creature measures its pain? If you're going to use "qualia," either admit that you are looking for a magic explanation, or use the word "sensation." Sensations are easily stimulated and measured today in neuroscience.
I'm not saying that your brain is an illusion. I'm saying that insisting that something has to observe your innermost self doesn't make it so. You can throw back the curtain as often as you like, but there will never be a man behind it. There is no Oz.
Well the reason I won't read DD's book is I can already see how flawed his argument with Robert Write here. The flaw is his assumption that a sophisticated machine which reacts like a human would also attain consciousness. This is 100% assumption but he thinks it's true because he ASSUMES it would happen. How could you KNOW a machine had consciousness even if it appeared to? Explaining consciousness is a LOT harder than understanding the principles of flight in 1903. It's MUCH more mysterious.
You're missing the point: any 'magic' explanation is no explanation. I haven't got one & DD hasn't either but the burden of proof lies with the claimant. He's saying 'it must be so because it has to be -there's no other explanation' True there isn't but his explanation is worthless -based on 100% speculation + 100% assumption & 0% evidence because we don't even have machines which appear (i.e. mimic) to have consciousness. I know the brain isn't an illusion but how COULD consciousness be either?
To answer what creature measures it's pain I'd say most do. I say 'measure' because for example a robot on Venus could measure sun dangerous radiation & react by heading for a shade. It could even transmit a message to NASA saying 'ouch!' but I know & you know it can't really FEEL pain. But if you or I get sunburn & say 'ouch' that's Qualia yes, based on sensation. The robot senses hot sun so you could say it senses the condition but doesn't have a sensation of discomfort like we do. Understand?
You're putting words into his mouth, sir. He is very open and honest about his assumptions, and he never once assumed himself to be correct. What he's doing is proving that Cartesian Dualism is pure garbage, then following thought experiments and real-world evidence to the conclusion that perhaps consciousness isn't magic after all. Just like optical illusions aren't actually swirling vortices. They're complicated, but they're natural, explainable, and repeatable. This is NOT an assumption.
No, I fully agree that magic is no kind of explanation. However, arguing over the "burden of proof" is a fool's errand when the debate is on whether something is possible. History is replete with examples of people claiming something is impossible and being later proven wrong.
What we CAN do is talk about things that can actually be understood instead of putting the weight of authority on some meaningless babble word like "consciousness" and debating about whether plants have "qualia."
Well I agree that Cartesian Dualism is no explanation: I never said it was. I still maintain that assuming a machine can attain real consciousness is ludicrous. You said we are ' able to simulate about 5 seconds of a cat' Yes SIMULATE! That's all. You've therefore admitted it isn't real consciousness & if you think it is how would you know? How would we know it's actual consciousness? Dennett can't truthfully answer that question. For example watch this clip:
watch?v=3vEDmNh-_4Q&feature=related
History also shows that some claims e.g. almost free power production, which haven't come true too. As I say no one inc DD can explain why we EXPERIENCE consciousness. You haven't addressed my example the Venus rover sensing dangerous radiation & yourself EXPERIENCING sun burn. Machines, even more sophisticated than todays could never experience anything (why would they?) They ONLY sense & react which is an illusion of consciousness. If we're in principle machines, we wouldn't experience either.
Sure, cheap power hasn't come true yet either.
However, your question doesn't make sense. You are arguing about the implications of a noun, X, without properly defining X, and then telling me that one thing definitely experience X, and that another thing definitely doesn't. Reality doesn't work like that. It works in shades of gray.
Without a reasonable criteria for X, you cannot expect people to agree that Bill experiences X, but BillBot or BillDog only have the illusion of X.
Here's an interesting counterexample I just ran across. Google "Amputee 'Feels' Fingers For First Time With Robotic Hand"
How can he feel his robotic fingers based on your assertion that robots can't feel?
The robotic hand sends impulses to the brain like a real one. A robot could SENSE via it's hand & say 'my hand senses heat' or even 'ouch!' but ONLY because it has no choice if it's programmed that way. Real conscious entities usually have some choice -don't you sense you have choices? i.e. 'Responses' rather than pre-programmed 'Reactions'? That's because you have a consciousness. You said 'we can SIMULATE consciousness' so why didn't you say 'we can CREATE consciousness' it's because we can't.
OK try this 'X' experiment- tell yourself:
'I have no consciousness'
Repeat it in your head a few times. Does it ring true? No? Why? Because you are conscious of it's impossibility. If you WEREN'T conscious how could you tell yourself you weren't? So you have 100% certainty it HAS to be real -that's your X. But if a machine said 'I'm conscious' why believe it? You know that ultimately it operates from human constructed instructions. How COULD you know it had a REAL not SIMULATED consciousness?
That's because you can't CREATE emergent properties. You set up situations where emergent properties arise.
When did not having a choice how you were programmed come in to your argument? I don't sense that I have any choice about my programmed response to pain. I can't just put my hand on a burner and choose to keep it there. Besides sensing that you have choices could easily have been programmed in to you/me/anything. Thinking that you are free doesn't make you free.
>>If you WEREN'T conscious how could you tell yourself you weren't?
Simply because I was 'programmed' by you to repeatedly say, 'I have no consciousness.'
Again, I can think and believe that I have 100% certainty until the cows come home. Doesn't make it so.
Even if I am conscious, it doesn't get me any closer to knowing if you are. Why make the jump and say this other thing isn't, even if it claims that it is? It is closer to consciousness than a human raised by wolves.
Now you're splitting hairs: you know you're conscious even if it's a private experience so you've got VERY good reason to assume MOST humans do too (let's not get into wolf children -not enough space!) But you keep on dogging the bullet & refuse to say how you know some hypothetical machine could be known to have consciousness, especially since according to you we can only SIMULATE not CREATE it. 'Emergent properties' exist in humans not machines. How would you PROVE a machine had consciousness?
When I say 'how could you tell yourself' I'm referring to the INNER EXPERIENCE not the ACTION of speaking. I CAN prove via the X experiment that I HAVE to be conscious. To say a machine programmed my someone to SAY 'I have consciousness' HAS to say it so why assume there's consciousness? We CAN choose to put our hands on a burner -it isn't easy, but it's been known to happen -or similar examples, so don't say it's 100% impossible. I ask you again: how could you PROVE a machine had consciousness?
I am dodging nothing. You are the one claiming absolute certainty here, and so the burden of proof lies on you. I have given you examples that call your bold assertions into question, given plausible explanations and recommended that you read into it before claiming ultimate knowledge. You repeatedly claim 100% certainty, and yet have given no evidence beyond the realm of "because I know, you know?"
The only way to know if something is aware is if it can convincingly claim it is.
'The only way to know if something is aware is if it can convincingly claim it is.'
Now we're getting somewhere! So what would be convincing about a machine that has been programmed to SIMULATE consciousness? Remember SIMULATE is the word you chose to use – why didn't you say CREATE? Because that requires Something from Nothing. Yes, I can't PROVE machine consciousness can't be created because you can't prove a negative. e.g. 'There's no Santa Clause' so YOU need to prove machine consciousness.
Sorry about the delay. Vacation was good.
You are putting way too much importance on my choice of words, I think. If a program can convincingly claim that it is sentient, then I would see no difference between SIMULATE and CREATE. Up until the AI is good enough, however, it would only be a simulation.
There are physical laws that the mythological Santa violates. Machine consciousness violates no such laws. If it did, I would have to concede the impossibility.
Well the choice of words is crucial because it represents the crux of what I'm saying: If we create a machine that SEEMS to have consciousness, this only proves it SEEMS to. Period. How can you KNOW consciousness exists instead of an illusion of it? There's a MASSIVE difference between SIMULATING & CREATING machine consciousness because one is real & one ISN'T!
How could any machine ever 'convincingly' claim it's conscious if it's programed to state that it has consciousness? It has no choice!
Then the crux of your argument is deeply flawed. I never claim 100% absolute certainty of anything, and therefore what you might consider to be weasel words on my part is meant to display humility in the fact that humans cannot know anything for certain, and that with sufficient evidence or logic, I will admit that I am wrong and change my mind.
Also, I distinguish simulating and creating because it is probably easier to set up ideal circumstances and let it happen than direct creation.
@sphericalpyramid guess ur comment ratings suggest most think you're wrong. Maybe you misunderstood something?
Consciousness is mental, physical, physiological, yes.
Go watch some boxing, you'll begin to understand.
People like Wright can't be allowed to parade around as an intellectual, people will foolishly start to believe it. The guy is a mystery man. Remember that movie? Horrible.
@sphericalpyramid You're not fooling anyone just so you know. You gave yourself away as someone who is really uneducated, trying to speak like someone who actually is.
intelligent people dont speak with an air of pompousness. Or strew their sentences with uncommon adjectives/verbs/nouns etc (why is it that every undereducated person thinks thats what intellectuals sound like? And its the easiest thing to spot anyways.
Further, you didn't even mount an argument for your opinion.
@sphericalpyramid lol again you show ur just posing, who feels flattered that someone thinks they talk in a pompous manner?
To help you fake it better in the future. Its not that you are using large words, it's that you actually REFRAIN from using an equally appropriate and accurate common words. In other words you TRY to use uncommon words
Then you further demonstrate how ignorant your opinion is when you judge dennetts arguments not on their merits, but on his speech delivery? Fail.
ZOMG the intervieweris such an A******!!!
Grrr he ruining this opportunity
also… cosciousness resides in our hearts and is omi-present -accessable remotely via meditiation and or lucid dreaming = astral projection.
Its funny cz te scientist interviewer…by being a tit, is actually shutting his own mind off from the greatrer potential… the brain is merely our 'Hard drive' for info…we are spirt/energy and our bodies are like a car/vehicle… i have been clinically dead several times and proved this 2 many people in many ways
If you're watching this, please STOP watching and order/download and read Daniel Dennett's Consciousness Explained. He making an admirable effort in defending some very difficult-to-grasp ideas against a well-prepared but ultimately mistaken "interviewer." You'll do much better going straight to the source itself. (If Wright has indeed written books on the subject or can recommend some, check those out too, after comparing them to Dennett's…)
Careful now, people. I know he looks like Santa Claus and all, but his "competing thought" theory is inherently disgusting. Dennett is an opponent of free will, as fate would have it. The idea of thoughts conflicting and ultimately giving way to a "king of the hill" thought is moreso a reflection of what goes on in Dennett's own brain. He can speak for himself, of course, and that's the end of it. There are those of us whose thoughts are lucid and coherent, and no competition is necessary.
@LeopardFrogPilboxhat
Make sure to utilize the Sarcasm Function. 😉
Blapperz! Click backwards 7 pages to find my 1st post starting:
'Perhaps you can help me understand Dennett's proposition?'
Am I missing something, or is Dennett like TOTALLY wrong! (And if it's me why?)
@sitemountain Maybe YouTube experienced a glitch, and your profile was displayed as responsible for the comment written by another author.
But how *would* consciousness feel, Robert Wright?
How can billions of 0s and 1s have consciousness. I don't see it. All it can have is probability.
Dennett on epiphenomenalism: "It's insane!" 7:40
@ManchesterBudo You've made some interesting observations. I think you're right in thinking that computers, robots e.t.c. are conscious to a small extent, but I have to stress on the "SMALL" as it really is small…at this point in historical time anyway.
I think that the ability to integrate or run cultural 'software' using language is what makes the difference. Memes seem to also play a significant role. Consciousness varies from person to person based on the sum of their experiences.
@matthewjhaywood computers by itself can never beat a chess champion. It needs a programmer. That programmer is consciousness.
"… yeah, there would be conscious robot" – I just love that think
@SciTechExplained God is the creator of my consciousness. Have you search for God with a sincere heart through prayer?
@209Hmooblis could you stop just defaulting to "god" as an excuse not to think about stuff? you can have "faith" in what you want but you cant deny that there are systems at work in the universe and that stuff _works_ in some way or another. if this was a discussion about a painting and theyre talking about painting technique and colors, youd be saying "this guy painted it. That explains it." No it doesnt. Youre off topic.
@frilansspion Sorry, I don't just think about stuff. I take action. When you're the answer will come.
@209Hmooblis "when you take actions the answer will come"? wha-? what action(s), what answer?
@frilansspion I apologize. I meant to say, when you're ready the answer will come.
@209Hmooblis yeah? still – what actions, what answer? an answer to what?
@frilansspion Each year had been going by so fast and I didn't felt like I have a purpose in life. It was then that I search for whether there really is a God or not. I also pondered, if there is a God can he help me? One day I looked up in the sky in tears and pray. All I can tell you is that after that day I had experienced things in life I never did before. These experiences changed my world view.
@209Hmooblis okay fair enough. thanks for telling me.
Wow… this video series should be called: "Robert Wright talks at Daniel Dennett" 0.o
1:45 WRONG!!!!!!!!
Epiphenomenal gremlins. This guys is awesome.
I have no idea what Mr.Dennett is talking about?