[Vmysobfi]

what about minds that have been impaired or limited by neural pathway damage?

I suppose the same applies. The point I was making is that consciousness isn't something that is specifically built into the system, but is simply the natural result of the brain doing what the brain does: process information. A consequence of this is that the precise nature of the consciousness will depend on the precise way the brain works. Thus, brain impaired individuals will have a consciousness that is altered in a way that depends on the specific nature of the brain impairment. I don't think that a brain impairment could turn a person into a philosophical zombie.

[rNr5Di3S]

I wonder though if a intelligent machine would necessarily be subject to some kind of suffering, and would necessarily have its own interests (which we need to take into account). We have those things through being the products of natural selection, but an intelligent machine wouldn't be. It always strikes me a bit odd in these science fiction stories of intelligent computers that, without any such designs being built into them, instinctively want to dominate the world and preserve their own existence - why would they ever care about those things?

Then again, on the other hand it would seem that a mind must in some way be motivated in order to function. Being motivated it has some kind of desire, which might lead it to suffering (thank you Buddha), and having its own interests.

A question this interests me is: How can a machine regard a data input as good or bad? For example, what is the difference between pain and the colour green?

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said:

It always strikes me a bit odd in these science fiction stories of intelligent computers that, without any such designs being built into them, instinctively want to dominate the world and preserve their own existence - why would they ever care about those things? However, consider a computer system that is designed to protect itself, for example a security system. Could such a system be regarded as having the basic emotion of fear?

I'm of the view that there needs to be some hardwiring present to define the basic motivations and avoidances. With learning capabilities, the basic hardwired motivations and avoidances can be further developed into fully advanced emotions.

[Sipewrio]

This issue is becoming increasingly important as we develop more intelligent machines, and the question of consciousness becomes connected to the question of ethical treatment of such machines.

The point that I was making here is that eventually we will have to determine a set of objective criteria that will decide whether an intelligent machine has sufficient capacity to require ethical treatment.

And with this statement, I am reminded of Genesis Ch.1 V.32

[fiettariaps]

The point that I was making here is that eventually we will have to determine a set of objective criteria that will decide whether an intelligent machine has sufficient capacity to require ethical treatment.

And with this statement, I am reminded of Genesis Ch.1 V.32

Having consulted the answer to everything, that's a pretty clever name for a song

[OlgaBorovikovva]

I suppose the same applies. The point I was making is that consciousness isn't something that is specifically built into the system, but is simply the natural result of the brain doing what the brain does: process information. A consequence of this is that the precise nature of the consciousness will depend on the precise way the brain works. Thus, brain impaired individuals will have a consciousness that is altered in a way that depends on the specific nature of the brain impairment. I don't think that a brain impairment could turn a person into a philosophical zombie.

Thanks. My comment was meant to relate to loss of or impaired input via neural pathways.

[Mister.levitra]

The approach of Pinker's, Tooby and Cosmides etc, that humans have more emotions than other animals, which is what gives us the ability to reason, is appealing, an idea that precedes them.

The buzz of tracking awarenesses is impressive. There's clearly some global tracking awareness, or composite of awarenesses that allows an observer or spectator position. On the face of it it looks and feels like bidirectionality between certain features of the mind.

Desire plays a strong part in what motivates thoughts, but the reverse feature of backtracking from memory to identifying the desire and reverse-reconstruction in this process seems observable also. This bidirectionality grows with age.

Note with age part of wisdom is wondering and more consideration of what motivates you to think and say things you do, and often you maybe so uncertain you avoid expression and even thinking many things. Consider the social field and gossip, peoples' preoccupation with others' doings and goings on. Why we might be inclined to impart this or that information, consideration of the divergence of propositional content and motive/intention. Not that everything this way is dissemblance, maybe often relative perspectives, the relative mechanisms that is, in the social field, well you know, the press agent is a work in progress.

Personally think a lot of mental-ease is maintained by appreciation and respect of a great part of thinking not being in words, expect here that most thinking is not in words at all, the forced conversion to language by social context and situational forces being of interest.

Culture and the state IMO have a delivery system operating by way of forcing language thinking.

The mentalese that gives us the mental ease, involved in homeostasis. The buzzing and humming that keeps us warm, realistically hopeful, equilibrium.

Doubtful the global observer of self operates in words, mostly. Can't see that being familiar, friendly-like to self, and maybe others.

[Nifoziyfar]

I suppose the same applies. The point I was making is that consciousness isn't something that is specifically built into the system, but is simply the natural result of the brain doing what the brain does: process information.

The problem with this view is that there is a lot of information processing going on of which we aren't conscious. For instance generally we aren't conscious of background noises until we deliberately attend to them, but it seems as if they were always there, somehow 'available to consciousness', when we do attend to them. Also you might not have any awareness of a background conversation until your name appears in that conversation and only then are you distinctly conscious of just having heard your name, and also that the conversation has been going on.

I was reading about recently about how when we become aware of something, we can feel that we've had a kind of unconscious knowing about it for a little while. Like when you realise your feet have become cold, or you've been needing to pee for a while.

[Zesavenue]

The problem with this view is that there is a lot of information processing going on of which we aren't conscious.

Is there? The brain is not like a simple recorder. It doesn't simply process all the information that is available. It selectively directs attention, a large part of its processing, to what interests it the most at the time. But that doesn't mean there isn't a small part of the conscious mind that is listening to the background noise. We don't notice it because it is a small part of the consciousness, and we can't examine it because that will redirect the attention to the examination itself.

[TRASIAOREXOLA]

Certainly minds prioritize, resource allocation is a big factor, and numerous things are involved in how we prioritize.
There's proximity in the physical sense, then there's relational proximity. Situation, context etc.
Mind is connected to body too, and the resources of own and others abilites and what can be extracted or reasonably expected of self and others comes into it.
There's immediate demands, and deferred and deferrable aspects.

Not all of the workings of minds are known to us, not all of the unappointed attentions at any moment that might be denoted tracking awarenesses are tightly allocated for strict purpose, some roaming unallocated resources are not at all a bad thing. In fact some roaming non-dedicated general resources, or surplus attention capacities, are probably required for dynamic applications of personal resources to much of the field of what goes into experience, and caring, moral and ethical consideration and much more. Even enjoyment of life.

That just mentioned above is probably threatened in the modern world to some extent. Organizational theories, with some assistance of what loosely maybe denoted scientific management theory, probably going way back to Fred Taylor, incline something of a cog in a machine approach to humans. Not that Fred's ideas and approach were to any great extent a bad thing, more it is the proud things get invited to parties and put the more interesting goers in the corner. Much less interesting than a toddler going through a cupboard of abandoned tupperware.

Nothing gets the job done better than taking a four or five year plan home with you.


Back to Doctor Watson, like-forebears, and like-minded descendants.
Must confess to some limited partiality to the observer-independent fetish of science myself. With a strong dose of prophylactic dithering so as not to aquire anything unwanted from it, not an absolutely straightforward operation in the context of the witches of empiricism rendering the potions down in their pet cauldrons, adjusting the measures for their purposes, which invariably involves effect goes to affect.

There's a need IMO for a term or phrase describing impositions of language on a device that doesn't do most of its operations in formal language.

[Avaboormavoro]

Link posted by jj is worth a read.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...400453796.html

[WFSdZuP3]

>>>in subtle ways that appropriate the whole experience and in so doing contaminating it.

If slow conformity or non-conformity to cultural standards were going be portrayed as a consequence of underbelief, or overbelief in some inner counterforce.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overbelief

"Overbelief is philosophical term for a belief adopted that requires more evidence than one presently has. Generally, acts of overbelief are justified on emotional need or faith, rather than evidence. It contrasts with the less-often debated concept, underbelief. Someone who fails to adopt a belief that they clearly have evidence for is committing underbelief"


*Actually the above is interesting, because it appears to discount evidence of emotional need, and guessing dithering [tech sense] between underbelief and overbelief is involved in reason. Worse though it maybe discounts emotional need for evidence.

[Savviioor]

There is suddenly a connection (for me) with cognitive dissonance (or lack of? or need to reduce) ... and also "confirmation bias" here ... none identical but all sharing some shades of meaning ... and then, in naming ... dismissing?

That's "them", "but not me", that's what those terms seem to be evoking, when I see / hear them.
What might be descriptors, become definers and by extension (almost invariably) excluders / limiters).

[TyncTyncSah]

... and guessing dithering [tech sense] between underbelief and overbelief is involved in reason. Worse though it maybe discounts emotional need for evidence.

two instant responses.

Yes ... that wordless (as distinct from inarticulate?) fragmentary state / time of reaching for THE WORDS to ... ... to , well it can only be to express the thoughts / emotions .

It is that singular grasping moment/s , trying to reach the deep recognition of what something means ... and in the eventual grasping, the unintended limiting.

[legal-advicer]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/sciammind/

specifically this topic

"The Brain May Disassemble Itself in Sleep

Slumber may loosen the links that undergird knowledge, restoring the brain daily to a vibrant, flexible state"

Interesting that vibrant and flexible are linked in this comment, when we spend so much time "tidying / controlling".

(Read disassemble as dissemble, which betrays prejudices )

[pimbertiemoft]

>>>"The Brain May Disassemble Itself in Sleep

Having to focus attention all the time can come with some patterned tightness, tension and stress even, which some may be happy to project elsewhere in the service of cultural expectations, and hardly needs saying time out from this is a requirement, you know the old saying 'all work and no play...'. Wouldn't underestimate fantasy as an escape, which is not the same as escapism involving more of the same.
Regular indulgence of alcohol at days end to reset doubtful is a good thing.

The prospect of experience integration involving dehabituation is probably anathema with some, incomprehensible necessity. More insight to be had from folk wisdom and individual good sense.

*Disassemble the contrivances that have us acting on situational forces. Anything more than a spontaneous grunt, enter the world of contrivance.

[ignonsoli]

Worth a read that link you posted, jj, then had a look at this one http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...the-wrong-body

Always takes me back to the possibility that the constructionists along with a best part of a century of the blank slate, whether delivered via media, education, broadly what may be called the ideological apparatus, has done some damage. No question the extent or strength individuals register such things as indicated in the link just posted varies across the population, but you know you can go to the toilet when teach says, you can eat when teach says, don't make a move without permission, your bowel movements, speech and everything are about to be mediated by social forces, we're going to go deep to your most primitive desires and mediate them with social forces. There is no internal environment, environment means external, who cares about homeostasis, they are just levers to pull to get the behaviours.

It's a strange old world, having the obvious confiscated then handed back via authority.

[JasminBerkova]

it's a strange old world

>
so much so that I often give up trying to worry at all.

[KinicsBonee]

I was going to use "appropriated" (from habit), then "hijacked".

On reflection though I think I go along with your choice.

"Confiscated" implies someone acting in an official* capacity on behalf of a greater authority.
Works better.



* if inchoate

[indianstory]

Some interesting history here, JJ

Inspired Ilya Prigogine, and friend of William James?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Bergson

[Virosponna]

Some interesting history here, JJ

Inspired Ilya Prigogine, and friend of William James?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Bergson

yes.