> On 20 May 2019, at 10:32, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 6:50:48 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: > > > On Sunday, May 19, 2019, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 2:40:04 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: > > > On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 1:21 PM Philip Thrift <[email protected] <>> wrote: > > > On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 10:13:22 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > On 5/19/2019 12:19 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 1:50:03 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >> >> >> On 5/18/2019 11:25 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: >>> >>> No I can't prove we aren't simulations, or that a simulation running in a >>> big computer made of Intel Cores can't be conscious. >> >> Nor can you give a reply to Chalmer's fading consciousness problem. >> >> >> >> http://consc.net/papers/qualia.html <http://consc.net/papers/qualia.html> : >> >> for a system to be conscious it must have the right sort of biochemical >> makeup; if so, a metallic robot or a silicon-based computer could never have >> experiences, no matter what its causal organization > > A natural suggestion is that when experience arises from a physical system, > it does so in virtue of the system's functional organization. On this view, > the chemical and indeed the quantum substrates of the brain are not directly > relevant to the existence of consciousness, although they may be indirectly > relevant. What is central is rather the brain's abstract causal organization, > an organization that might be realized in many different physical substrates. > > In this paper I defend this view. > > >> >> That from David Chalmer's paper is the only good takeaway. > > Brent > > > > That was written in 1993. (In 2019, I don't think he himself defends this > view.) > > In any case, I read this "defense" like I read papers defending the existence > of God. > > > A scientist should be thrilled to find something which might show the ideas > he or she holds to be wrong, as it offers a chance to adopt a more correct > view. Recently I have seen a lot of people on this list telling others their > idea is wrong, but not giving any reason or reasoning to justify that > assertion. > > This doesn't helping anyone. Telling someone else they are wrong without > providing a reason won't get them to change their mind, if anything failing > to provide a reason is just as likely to reinforce their belief. If you see > or intuit something that someone else does not, I think it is best to either > point out what it is they are missing or remain silent. > > Jason > > > > Philip, > > I commend you for providing your reasons below. Thank you. > > > > We know our brains, which we examine in science to be made of a complex > configuration of cells, neurons and glial, with complex neurochemistry*, > produces consciousness. That is the fact we know to be the case. > > Yes, I agree. > > > So it seems reasonable, from both a scientific and engineering stance, that a > synthetic intelligence approach - one that combines synthetic-biological > assembly with AI information processing to produce outputs that are actually > living things - is the road to (synthetic) consciousness. > > The belief that a conventional computer made of a zillion Intel Core chips > with the right programming can be conscious is a religious belief, not a a > scientific belief. > > > You could say it is a hypothesis for which we currently have no direct > evidence for. Is there anything you would consider evidence? If a synthetic > Android claimed to be conscious would this be evidence that would convince > you? If not, what evidence could convince you? > > The burden of proof is on those with that belief to prove it, just as the > burden of proof is on those with the belief that God exists to prove that. > > > I think the burden rests equally on those holding either that "synthetic > brains cannot be conscious" as "synthetic brains can be conscious". > > The reason I lean towards the second camp, is that the former leads to very > strange situations: pzombies that complain about pain, Androids who argue > that they're conscious, planets with zombies (of a different neuro chemistry) > who nonetheless write books on consciousness, fading qualia, and qualia that > "dance" (disappear and reappear) due to presence or absence of a few > synthetic neurons. > > I am not aware of anything quite so strange resulting from a belief in > synthetic consciousness. Sure it is strange that a billion Intel chips could > be conscious, but no more strange than the idea that a heap of oil droplets > squirting ions back and forth could be conscious. > > Anyway that's how I got to where I am. > > Jason > > > > * neurochemistry like the recently reported role of SATB2-expressing neurons > in the processing of taste. > > SATB2: "SATB2 is a 733 amino-acid homeodomain-containing human protein with a > molecular weight of 82.5 kDa encoded by the SATB2 gene on 2q33." > > @philipthrift > > > > > We do know that some synthetic-biological objects (SBOs) exist that are > conscious: Us. > > Except here the material synthesis was accomplished via natural selection, > not bay a team of scientists and engineers. > > An android that came with a resume outlining its manufacturing via > sufficiently synthetic-biological processes and said "I am conscious" might > be believed. We could cut it open, but that would not be nice. > > There are several alternatives to our biochemistry, of course [ > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry> ], even > involving silicon*. (This is about the 20th time I have posted this.) > > But I claim that no zillion-processor Intel Core computer (that ultimately > runs programs compiled to Intel machine code) can be conscious. I also claim > God does not exist.
Which God? > > It is this context that [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room> ] is correct. > > "The Chinese room argument holds that an executing program cannot [have] > consciousness, regardless of how intelligently or human-like the program may > make the computer behave.” The Chinese room argument is based on a misunderstanding of how a computer work. It has been refuted correctly by Dennett and Hofstadter, since long. Bruno > > * Silicon biochemistry > > See also: Organosilicon <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organosilicon> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Silane.png> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Silane.png>Structure of silane > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silane>, analog of methane > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PDMS.svg> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PDMS.svg>Structure of the silicone > polydimethylsiloxane <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polydimethylsiloxane> > (PDMS) > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Diatom2.jpg> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Diatom2.jpg>Marine diatoms > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatoms>—carbon-based organisms that extract > silicon from sea water, in the form of its oxide (silica) and incorporate it > into their cell walls > The silicon atom has been much discussed as the basis for an alternative > biochemical system, because silicon has many chemical properties > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_property> similar to those of carbon > and is in the same group of the periodic table > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_(periodic_table)>, the carbon group > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_group>. Like carbon, silicon can create > molecules that are sufficiently large to carry biological information.[10] > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry#cite_note-Pace-10> > However, silicon has several drawbacks as an alternative to carbon. Silicon, > unlike carbon, lacks the ability to form chemical bonds with diverse types of > atoms as is necessary for the chemical versatility required for metabolism, > and yet this precise inability is what makes silicon less susceptible to bond > with all sorts of impurities from which carbon, in comparison, is not > shielded. Elements creating organic functional groups with carbon include > hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfur, and metals such as iron, > magnesium, and zinc. Silicon, on the other hand, interacts with very few > other types of atoms.[10] > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry#cite_note-Pace-10> > Moreover, where it does interact with other atoms, silicon creates molecules > that have been described as "monotonous compared with the combinatorial > universe of organic macromolecules".[10] > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry#cite_note-Pace-10> > This is because silicon atoms are much bigger, having a larger mass > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass> and atomic radius > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_radius>, and so have difficulty forming > double bonds (the double-bonded carbon is part of the carbonyl > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonyl> group, a fundamental motif of > carbon-based bio-organic chemistry). > > Silanes <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silanes>, which are chemical compounds > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_compound>of hydrogen > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen> and silicon that are analogous to > the alkane <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alkane> hydrocarbons > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrocarbon>, are highly reactive with water > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_(molecule)>, and long-chain silanes > spontaneously decompose. Molecules incorporating polymers > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer> of alternating silicon and oxygen > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen> atoms instead of direct bonds between > silicon, known collectively as silicones > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicone>, are much more stable. It has been > suggested that silicone-based chemicals would be more stable than equivalent > hydrocarbons in a sulfuric-acid-rich environment, as is found in some > extraterrestrial locations.[11] > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry#cite_note-world-building-11> > Of the varieties of molecules identified in the interstellar medium > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_medium> as of 1998, 84 are based > on carbon, while only 8 are based on silicon.[12] > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry#cite_note-12> > Moreover, of those 8 compounds, 4 also include carbon within them. The > cosmic abundance > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_the_chemical_elements> of carbon > to silicon is roughly 10 to 1. This may suggest a greater variety of complex > carbon compounds throughout the cosmos, providing less of a foundation on > which to build silicon-based biologies, at least under the conditions > prevalent on the surface of planets. Also, even though Earth > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth> and other terrestrial planets > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrestrial_planet> are exceptionally > silicon-rich and carbon-poor (the relative abundance of silicon to carbon in > Earth's crust is roughly 925:1), terrestrial life is carbon-based. The fact > that carbon is used instead of silicon may be evidence that silicon is poorly > suited for biochemistry on Earth-like planets. Reasons for which may be that > silicon is less versatile than carbon in forming compounds, that the > compounds formed by silicon are unstable, and that it blocks the flow of > heat.[13] > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry#cite_note-BC-13> > Even so, biogenic silica <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenic_silica> is > used by some Earth life, such as the silicate > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicate> skeletal structure of diatoms > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatom>. According to the clay hypothesis > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Clay_hypothesis> of A. G. > Cairns-Smith <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Cairns-Smith>, silicate > minerals in water played a crucial role in abiogenesis > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis>: they replicated their crystal > structures, interacted with carbon compounds, and were the precursors of > carbon-based life.[14] > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry#cite_note-14>[15] > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry#cite_note-15> > Although not observed in nature, carbon–silicon bonds have been added to > biochemistry by using directed evolution (artificial selection). A heme > containing cytochrome c protein from Rhodothermus marinus has been engineered > using directed evolution to catalyze the formation of new carbon–silicon > bonds between hydrosilanes and diazo compounds.[16] > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry#cite_note-16> > Silicon compounds may possibly be biologically useful under temperatures or > pressures different from the surface of a terrestrial planet, either in > conjunction with or in a role less directly analogous to carbon. > Polysilanols, the silicon compounds corresponding to sugars > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar>, are soluble in liquid nitrogen, > suggesting that they could play a role in very-low-temperature > biochemistry.[17] > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry#cite_note-17>[18] > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry#cite_note-18> > In cinematic and literary science fiction, at a moment when man-made machines > cross from nonliving to living, it is often posited,[by whom? > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Unsupported_attributions>] > this new form would be the first example of non-carbon-based life. Since the > advent of the microprocessor <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microprocessor> > in the late 1960s, these machines are often classed as computers > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer> (or computer-guided robots > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot>) and filed under "silicon-based life", > even though the silicon backing matrix of these processors is not nearly as > fundamental to their operation as carbon is for "wet life". > > > > @philipthrift > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4f4e55da-f49a-4bc8-8377-eede30aa68bc%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4f4e55da-f49a-4bc8-8377-eede30aa68bc%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/27ED009B-566A-4DC2-A9FB-629D2B9039DB%40ulb.ac.be.
