Are AI fanboys aware of the fact that consciousness is a unity ?

[Cosmin Visan]

Are AI fanboys aware of the fact that consciousness is a unity ? For example, hearing something and seeing something don't happen in 2 independent consciousnesses, but happen in only 1 consciousness. Also, split brain patients show 2 different consciousness, for example one being theist, the other atheist, and so on. If AI is to be conscious, then what will decide the unification of different "information processings" ? If for example that AI has 2 modules: one that "process" sounds and one that "process" images, how do you know if there are 2 conscious AIs there or only 1 ?

Let the magic begin!

[Brent Meeker]

And let the B.S. stop.  Show us the magic.

Brent

[Cosmin Visan]

Did you understand what I just wrote ?

[Philip Thrift]

Consciousness monism is incoherent if one maintains that there is an objective reality at all.

If one rejects objective reality (a reality independent of oneself, or any self-aware conscious entity) then all bets are off.

But I guess there are "AI fanboys" (as I understand what you mean) who seem to dismiss consciousness, or have the delusion that it is just "information processing", or "patterns" of neural activity.

Even the latest neurobiology on how the brain processes taste identifies the critical tole of  the neurobiochemical SATB2 - "a 733 amino-acid homeodomain-containing human protein with a molecular weight of 82.5 kDa encoded by the SATB2 gene on 2q33." I.e. it's complicated.

But how much "unity" consciousness is is an open question:

https://www.academia.edu/34679385/PANPSYCHISM_IN_THE_FIRST_PERSON

by Michel Bitbol

A central presupposition of science is that objectivity is universal. This does not only create a blindspot in knowledge, but also forces one to ignore it. Several strategies were accordingly adopted to overcome this ignorance, along with the standard divide between continental and analytic philosophy. One of them is Phenomenology, with its project of stripping the layers of interpretation by way of a complete suspension of judgment (epochè), and evaluating any claim of knowledge from such a basis of “pure consciousness”. Another one is pan-experientialist metaphysics, that puts back pure experience in the very domain that was deprived of it by the act of objectification. I compare these two approaches, thereby establishing a hierarchy of radicality between avoiding the blindspot from the outset and compensating for it retrospectively.

@philipthrift

[Brent Meeker]

Did you?  Have you not heard of synesthesia? 

"Processing" means forming memories and drawing conclusions about action (including not taking action).  Mere measuring or recording is not the kind of processing that could produce qualia.

Brent

--
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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/549fb2ef-d65e-46eb-a9fd-c9100ec0ff81%40googlegroups.com.

[Cosmin Visan]

On Saturday, 18 May 2019 18:55:29 UTC+3, Brent wrote:

Did you?  Have you not heard of synesthesia? 

That is of course a case of cosciousness unification.

"Processing" means forming memories and drawing conclusions about action (including not taking action).  Mere measuring or recording is not the kind of processing that could produce qualia.

Oh, so you're not an AI fanboy aymore ?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 18 May 2019, at 10:12, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:

Consciousness monism is incoherent if one maintains that there is an objective reality at all.

If one rejects objective reality (a reality independent of oneself, or any self-aware conscious entity) then all bets are off.

But I guess there are "AI fanboys" (as I understand what you mean) who seem to dismiss consciousness, or have the delusion that it is just "information processing", or "patterns" of neural activity.

Even the latest neurobiology on how the brain processes taste identifies the critical tole of  the neurobiochemical SATB2 - "a 733 amino-acid homeodomain-containing human protein with a molecular weight of 82.5 kDa encoded by the SATB2 gene on 2q33." I.e. it's complicated.

But how much "unity" consciousness is is an open question:

https://www.academia.edu/34679385/PANPSYCHISM_IN_THE_FIRST_PERSON

by Michel Bitbol

A central presupposition of science is that objectivity is universal.

By definition, objectivity is universal. We just do not know for sure what is that objective reality. Assuming mechanism, arithmetic is more than enough (the sigma_1 reality is enough, for the objective part, but the whole of mathematics is not enough for the phenomenological part).

This does not only create a blindspot in knowledge, but also forces one to ignore it.

That is weird. That eventually explain that there will be a sort of blindspot, but that means that we have to take it into account to guess the “objective reality”.

Bruno

Several strategies were accordingly adopted to overcome this ignorance, along with the standard divide between continental and analytic philosophy. One of them is Phenomenology, with its project of stripping the layers of interpretation by way of a complete suspension of judgment (epochè), and evaluating any claim of knowledge from such a basis of “pure consciousness”. Another one is pan-experientialist metaphysics, that puts back pure experience in the very domain that was deprived of it by the act of objectification. I compare these two approaches, thereby establishing a hierarchy of radicality between avoiding the blindspot from the outset and compensating for it retrospectively.

@philipthrift

On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 4:25:30 PM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:

Are AI fanboys aware of the fact that consciousness is a unity ? For example, hearing something and seeing something don't happen in 2 independent consciousnesses, but happen in only 1 consciousness. Also, split brain patients show 2 different consciousness, for example one being theist, the other atheist, and so on. If AI is to be conscious, then what will decide the unification of different "information processings" ? If for example that AI has 2 modules: one that "process" sounds and one that "process" images, how do you know if there are 2 conscious AIs there or only 1 ?

--
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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2c931ccb-098f-40c8-9fdc-66d0e6e339b5%40googlegroups.com.