Maintaining a thesis at all costs

[sayak83]

I go by Shankara and may differ with you in some detail. But we seem to agree overall.

So what's the problem if machines can be conscious? After all computers do math, but nobody thereby claims that math is material.

 

[atanu]

So what's the problem if machines can be conscious? After all computers do math, but nobody thereby claims that math is material.

It is the most crucial issue, from truth point of view.

Self awareness, if born, will not be free and cannot claim to have access to truth of itself. Point of Hinduism and Buddhism and all religions is 'Swatantra', attaining moksha, nirvana, salvation. Since, atman is unborn it can attain moksha.

Consciousness is not tied to any object. It appears tied to senses and objects in us in samsara.
.....

If our intelligence was created, then how do we know the truth of that creation? Of course many without contemplating on the point will claim that a created intelligence will be able to unravel the ruth of its creation. I will request all readers to first think.

Contemplation and meditation will reveal that the 'Present' is the self evident truth and in present self consciousness is the evident truth. The past and future are based on the present, which cannot be falsified by past or future.

 

[sayak83]

It is the most crucial issue, from truth point of view.

Self awareness, if born, will not be free and cannot claim to have access to truth of itself. Point of Hinduism and Buddhism and all religions is 'Swatantra', attaining moksha, nirvana, salvation. Since, atman is unborn it can attain moksha.

Consciousness is not tied to any object. It appears tied to senses and objects in us in samsara.

Math is not tied to objects either, it's simply instantiated through it in the phenomenal world. Mathematics is true regardless of whether it's instantiated in the physical world or not.

 

[atanu]

I think we have deviated much from the OP.

 

[atanu]

Math is not tied to objects either, it's simply instantiated through it in the phenomenal world. Mathematics is true regardless of whether it's instantiated in the physical world or not.

Yeah. I agree only partially. In this regard I go by Godel.

 

[sayak83]

Yeah. I agree only partially. In this regard I go by Godel.

Cool. You are more of an idealist bent than me.

 

[atanu]

I find many posters in this forum aligned to what Dennet et al offer us as their conclusions. I however, think that many of these esteemed members have not examined the basic tenets on which the conclusions are built. I felt like sharing my view. Most of the following is taken from:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/03/09/is-consciousness-an-illusion-dennett-evolution/

The two cores of Mr. Daniel Dennet's thesis are:

1. The first core is the hypothesis that intelligence evolved naturally. Dennett himself identifies two unsolved problems along this path: the origin of life at its beginning and the origin of human culture recently. But he uses this unsubstantiated hypothesis for developing the whole philosophy.

2. The second core is use of philosopher Wilfrid Sellars idea of the “manifest image” and the “scientific image”—two ways of seeing the world we live in. According to the manifest image, Dennett writes, the world is

“…..full of other people, plants, and animals, furniture and houses and cars…and colors and rainbows and sunsets, and voices and haircuts, and home runs and dollars, and problems and opportunities and mistakes, among many other such things. These are the myriad “things” that are easy for us to recognize, point to, love or hate, and, in many cases, manipulate or even create…. It’s the world according to us.”​

According to the scientific image, on the other hand, the world is

“… populated with molecules, atoms, electrons, gravity, quarks, and who knows what else (dark energy, strings? branes?).”​

This, according to Dennett, is the world as it is in itself.

In keeping with his general view of the manifest image, Dennett holds that consciousness is not part of reality in the way the brain is. Rather, it is a particularly salient and convincing user-illusion. He concludes that nothing whatever is revealed to the first-person point of view but a “version” of the neural machinery.

So, when one looks at an apple, it may seem that there is a red fruit in the subjective visual field, but that is an illusion: the only reality, of which this is “an interpreted, digested version,” is that a physical process one can’t describe, occurring in the visual cortex.
...........

So, according to Dennet, the apple you see is representation of neural machinery. But what is the Neural Machinery? Of what is Neural machinery the representation of? What is the brain? That is not a representation?

Discuss please.

To bring back the attention.

I reiterate that the first premise of Dennet that intelligence evolved naturally is not a fact. And second, if consciousness is only the neuronal activity and not real, then of what value is Dennet's thesis? As per Searle:

By the term consciousness Dennet refers only to third-person phenomena, not to the first-person conscious feelings and experiences we all have. We are all just complex zombies. This is self-refuting because it denies the existence of the data which an understanding of consciousness is to explain.​

 

[shunyadragon]

It is the most crucial issue, from truth point of view.

Self awareness, if born, will not be free and cannot claim to have access to truth of itself. Point of Hinduism and Buddhism and all religions is 'Swatantra', attaining moksha, nirvana, salvation. Since, atman is unborn it can attain moksha.

Consciousness is not tied to any object. It appears tied to senses and objects in us in samsara.
.....

If our intelligence was created, then how do we know the truth of that creation? Of course many without contemplating on the point will claim that a created intelligence will be able to unravel the ruth of its creation. I will request all readers to first think.

Contemplation and meditation will reveal that the 'Present' is the self evident truth and in present self consciousness is the evident truth. The past and future are based on the present, which cannot be falsified by past or future.

Yes, this is deviating off topic,but this is a theological/philosophical objection and not addressing whether it is possible or not.

 

[shunyadragon]

Not exactly. He does not say that these subjective feelings etc. arise but he maintains that these are just the neuronal activities. There is no second thing arising. He is a strict monist.

Further reading indicates that Daniel Dennett does separate subjective feelings from consciousness. No there is no separate arising. Consciousness and feelings are not 'things.'

An interesting exchange (debate?) was in the New York Times:

From: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/12/21/the-mystery-of-consciousness-an-exchange/
‘The Mystery of Consciousness’: An Exchange
Daniel C. Dennett, reply by John R. Searle

The following is an interesting part of the response by John Searle"

6. Dennett says that I advance only one argument, the Chinese Room. This is not true. There are in fact two independent sets of arguments, one about strong AI, one about the existence of consciousness. The Chinese Room is one argument in the first set, but the deeper argument against computationalism is that the computational features of a system are not intrinsic to its physics alone, but require a user or interpreter. Some people have made interesting criticisms of this second argument, but not Dennett in his book or in this exchange. He simply ignores it. About consciousness, I must say that if someone persistently denies the existence of consciousness itself, traditional arguments, with premises and conclusions, may never convince him. All I can do is remind the readers of the facts of their own experiences. Here is the paradox of this exchange: I am a conscious reviewer consciously answering the objections of an author who gives every indication of being consciously and puzzlingly angry. I do this for a readership that I assume is conscious. How then can I take seriously his claim that consciousness does not really exist?"

The rest of the article is worth reading. I side with John Searle on this issue.

 

[shunyadragon]

To bring back the attention.

I reiterate that the first premise of Dennet that intelligence evolved naturally is not a fact. And second, if consciousness is only the neuronal activity and not real, then of what value is Dennet's thesis? As per Searle:

By the term consciousness Dennet refers only to third-person phenomena, not to the first-person conscious feelings and experiences we all have. We are all just complex zombies. This is self-refuting because it denies the existence of the data which an understanding of consciousness is to explain.​

First, the nature of the science of evolution is not a 'fact.' It is the best scenario based on the evidence demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt, and the science of evolution does not differentiate any physical attribute nor mental activity as something evolved and something not.

Second, I do side with Searle on the nature of consciousness as first person and not a third party illusion, but John Searle would also consider consciousness as evolved as the brain evolved.

Where I disagree with John Searle is he supports determinism, and considers Free Will is an illusion.

I support compatibilism, and even though determinism dominates, the 'potential' of human free will exists.

Daniel Dennett describes free will vaguely as 'wiggle room' in a deterministic world.

 

[atanu]

If first party consciousness is illusion and that all our seeing/knowing is representational, of what value is Dennet's data and his theory?

On awareness, which is the present, every object -- physical or mental, rest. With our created mental objects (thoughts), we cannot nullify the consciousness itself.