Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

AB,

"This gives rise to the vision of self-aware architecture, where design decisions and execution strategies for these concerns are dynamically analysed and seamlessly managed at run-time. "

What is being aimed at is a system which can make its own decisions.  This is not a definition of self awareness - it is just automated decision making derived from programming, not from any conscious entity.

Your thesis here seems to be:

1. Software functions as long chains of cause and effect.

Software certainly runs as a chain of cause and effect, but its origin lies in acts of intelligently guided human free will.

2. Consciousness involves "free" will that's not constrained by cause and effect.

Consciousness is simply an awareness of the content of many brain cells.  Free will is the ability of that consciousness to interact with those brain cells.

3. Therefore software can never be consciousness apt.

The reason that software can never be conscious is because consciousness is not a programmable entity.  You can't program a soul into existence.

I hope this clears up some of your misunderstandings.

[torridon]

The reason that software can never be conscious is because consciousness is not a programmable entity. 

Why not ?

Since you are running on programming metaphors, why not consider genetic code as being like a program. I am built faithfully according my genetic coding and hey, I am conscious. An Ibex is built faithfully according its genetic coding and it is conscious. A sponge is built faithfully according its genetic coding and it is not conscious. We can predict from its genome whether a creature will have consciousness.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

What is being aimed at is a system which can make its own decisions.  This is not a definition of self awareness - it is just automated decision making derived from programming, not from any conscious entity.

First, you should tell this to the people working on the problem. What do you know that they don’t?

Second, yes autonomous decision-making is a definition of self-awareness – that pretty much what “self-awareness” means. What else would it be? Even the sentence you attempt is contradictory – if the system “makes its own decisions” then it’s not “automated decision making” is it.

Good grief!

Software certainly runs as a chain of cause and effect, but its origin lies in acts of intelligently guided human free will.

Of course software is written. The point though is that people are working even as we speak on creating software that produces outcomes that aren’t written at all.

Consciousness is simply an awareness of the content of many brain cells.

Wrong. Consciousness is “many brain cells”. More accurately, it’s an emergent property of neurons and of the communications between them.

Free will is the ability of that consciousness to interact with those brain cells.

Wrong again. “Free” will is the impression we have of independent decision-making outside of the constraints of cause and effect. It’s a beguiling and practically useful narrative, but it’s still wrong.

The reason that software can never be conscious is because consciousness is not a programmable entity.

A statement you cannot possibly know to be true, and if the people working on the problem succeed that will at some time be demonstrated to be wrong.

You can't program a soul into existence.

You can’t anything a “soul” into existence. It’s just a non-explanation borne of a mediaeval mind-set that definitionally incoherent and logically hopeless.

I hope this clears up some of your misunderstandings.

I hope this clears up some of your misunderstandings. Somehow, I doubt that it will though.

Ah well.

[torridon]

The capacity to learn from experience can be part of the programmed instincts.  Computerised chess players are programmed to recognise past mistakes and avoid them in future games.

We do have much in common with animals, but their behaviour is far more predictable than humans because our conscious self has the capacity to override our instincts and learnt experiences in order to do something just because we want to.

Learning involves conscious experience normally. I'd agree human behaviours are less predictable than those of most other animals. And at last you seem to be acknowledging that this is a question of degree. Predictability is not an either/or, it admits of degrees and varies from species to species and individual to individual. A degree of unpredictability gives a prey animal an edge over its predators who rely on being able to predict it's lunch's behaviour. Unpredictability in a predator might give it some advantage over its competitors as it will be more able to exploit a wider range of niches.  Humans of course are both prey and predator. 

[Stranger]

Of course randomness does not produce control.

I know - that is why your continued arguments that conscious control cannot be deterministic is so silly. Randomness is the only alternative to deterministic.

The source of all control I am aware of comes from the interaction of conscious free will of human beings, not from the uncontrolled deterministic chains of physical events which began with the Big Bang.

Once again, around and around in circles, you go. Your statement assumes that control comes from consciousness and that consciousness cannot be form "deterministic chains".

You cannot use the 'argument' that there cannot be control in the physical universe, if your only 'reason' to support the 'argument' just assumes that control is something that cannot exist in the physical universe.

You seem to be confusing randomness with the spiritual interaction of the human soul, which is not random.

It is you that are terribly confused. If it is not random, then it is deterministic.

Look, it's blindingly obvious what your problem is...

You are trying to argue that conscious control can only come from self-aware entities with "free will" and that such entities cannot just be parts of the physical universe. Unfortunately for you, you don't understand how any of those things (consciousness, self-awareness and "free will") work, so you can't point out exactly what it is about them that can't be a part of the physical universe (not without resorting to the same terms and making your argument circular, anyway).

You also seem to be totally unable to grasp that the only alternative to determinism is randomness and that removing consciousness from the physical universe makes not a jot of difference in that respect.

[Alan Burns]

Second, yes autonomous decision-making is a definition of self-awareness – that pretty much what “self-awareness” means. What else would it be? Even the sentence you attempt is contradictory – if the system “makes its own decisions” then it’s not “automated decision making” is it.

It is surely a question of where the decision originates from.  A conscious decision, by its definition must originate from an entity of conscious awareness.

Any decision generated from software, no matter how complex, has its origin in the way the software is written, which in turn has its origin in the intelligently conceived actions of the human programmer.  The intelligent programmer may well enable the software to make decisions, but these decisions will be entirely derived from the programming, not from any entity of conscious awareness in the computer.

Computer generated self awareness will always remain in the realms of science fiction.

[Stranger]

The reason that software can never be conscious is because consciousness is not a programmable entity.  You can't program a soul into existence.

        That isn't a reason - it's just restating an assertion using different words.

[Alan Burns]

You also seem to be totally unable to grasp that the only alternative to determinism is randomness and that removing consciousness from the physical universe makes not a jot of difference in that respect.

But my most basic concept of reality shows that there are two types of determinism.  One is derived from continuous chains of physical events over which there is no control.  The other is derived from the conscious free will of human beings.

[Stranger]

But my most basic concept of reality shows that there are two types of determinism.  One is derived from continuous chains of physical events over which there is no control.  The other is derived from the conscious free will of human beings.

So, ignoring the rest of my post that shows that you are arguing in circles, then...?

Ho-hum.

Firstly, you seem totally unable to defend your "basic concept of reality" with anything like logical reasoning or objective evidence.

Secondly, the wording "derived from the conscious free will" suggests further confusion on your part. The point I was making is that conscious ("free will") decisions must be the result of some (internal) processes that are deterministic or random. You can't magic conscious choices out of nothing - "free will" has to work some how: it must have internal processes that arrive at choices.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It is surely a question of where the decision originates from.  A conscious decision, by its definition must originate from an entity of conscious awareness.

So far, so good (if a little tautological), provided of course that by "entity" you actually mean "emergent property"…

Any decision generated from software, no matter how complex, has its origin in the way the software is written, which in turn has its origin in the intelligently conceived actions of the human programmer.

Depends what you mean by “has its origin”, but yes. Trouble is though, that’s not what’s under discussion - you’re just changing horses mid-stream here. If you want to have a conversation about whether organic “software” is evolved or intelligently coded you can, but the point remains that there’s nothing special about consciousness that places it necessarily outside the ability of software to become conscious.

I notice incidentally that you just ignored the hole you fell into of claiming that a system that “makes its own decisions" is “just automated decision making”.
 
You’ve also just ignored the other points that undid you and cherry-picked the one that you though you could rebut, albeit wrongly as it turned out. Why do you do that?

The intelligent programmer may well enable the software to make decisions, but these decisions will be entirely derived from the programming, not from any entity of conscious awareness in the computer.

And again you miss the point entirely. Whether “intelligently programmed” or evolved, the issue is that consciousness is an emergent property of its component parts fundamentally dependent on chains of cause and effect. That you don’t like that because it removes a plank of your religious beliefs is neither here nor there – you still don’t get just to assert consciousness to be some magic property that’s not a function of cause and effect. 

Computer generated self awareness will always remain in the realms of science fiction.

As you’ve just ignored the rebuttal of that – ie, that it’s not something you could possibly know to be true, and moreover that people are actively working on solutions that would demonstrate you to be wrong – why bother just repeating the mistake?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But my most basic concept of reality shows that there are two types of determinism.  One is derived from continuous chains of physical events over which there is no control.  The other is derived from the conscious free will of human beings.

Then your "most basic concept or reality" is wrong, for reasons that have been explained to you many times but that for the most part you just ignore.

[torridon]

But my most basic concept of reality shows that there are two types of determinism.  One is derived from continuous chains of physical events over which there is no control.  The other is derived from the conscious free will of human beings.

But your most basic concept of reality, that there are two types of determinism, is just plain wrong. There is only one type of determinism.  Something is determined if it is an outcome of prior chains of cause and effect. If it is not a determined outcome of something prior, then it is random. That choices made by persons are attributable to cause and effect can easily be recognised in the fact that we do things for a reason.  If we do something for absolutely no reason whatever, then we are saying that choice is random.

[Gordon]

But my most basic concept of reality shows that there are two types of determinism.  One is derived from continuous chains of physical events over which there is no control.  The other is derived from the conscious free will of human beings.

Then you are wrong: things are either deterministic or they are random. Since people tend not to do completely random things (even when they think they are) then even apparent 'free will' is subject to determinism. Try listening to the Philosophy Bites episode I posted a link to yesterday.

Does it not concern you that professional scientists investigating consciousness aren't on the lookout for 'souls'? 

[wigginhall]

I was going to ask how the soul could be involved in determinism of any kind, since it's not a material thing.   But there's no point; in AB's la-la land, anything can be anything, just by stating it.   It's 'his' concept of determinism, folks, where magical things happen, as if by magic.   Just like that.

[Alan Burns]

But your most basic concept of reality, that there are two types of determinism, is just plain wrong. There is only one type of determinism.  Something is determined if it is an outcome of prior chains of cause and effect. If it is not a determined outcome of something prior, then it is random. That choices made by persons are attributable to cause and effect can easily be recognised in the fact that we do things for a reason.  If we do something for absolutely no reason whatever, then we are saying that choice is random.

You always seem to miss the point I make that a conscious choice is not random, nor is it the end result of uncontrollable chains of events.  It is simply invoked by an act of conscious free will.  Where we seem to differ is in what comprises the conscious awareness that drives our will to do things.   BH keeps asserting that it is an emergent property, but without any definition of how conscious awareness works, this remains an unprovable assertion, and to my mind a totally illogical one.  The reality is that my conscious awareness (me) can invoke choices, drive my thoughts, perceive the sensory inputs of my body, appreciate the beauty of nature, contemplate the reality of my existence, drive my thirst for knowledge, pray to God, and many more things which are totally beyond the capacity of uncontrolled deterministic activity of my physical brain cells.

[Alan Burns]

Does it not concern you that professional scientists investigating consciousness aren't on the lookout for 'souls'?

This is the fallacy of an argument from authority 

[SusanDoris]

Note to Mods: Even if I'm dead and gone by the time this thread ends, will you please promise to make sure that AB does not have the last word?! Thank you!

[Gordon]

This is the fallacy of an argument from authority 

No it isn't, Alan: it's a question to you based on the observation that, as far as I can determine, no professional scientists include 'souls' in their hypotheses in relation to consciousness. You seen to be ploughing a lone furrow here!

[Stranger]

You always seem to miss the point I make that a conscious choice is not random, nor is it the end result of uncontrollable chains of events.  It is simply invoked by an act of conscious free will.

It is you who are spectacularly missing the point.

You seem to think you are a magic singularity with no internal processes, that just comes up with choices from nothing. That is self-contradictory nonsense. The fact is that you make choices for reasons, via a decision making process. It is that process that can only be comprised of deterministic (and possibly some random) steps.

Every time you invoke a 'you' that does something outside of some deterministic chain of events, it just adds another deterministic chain of events, internal to the 'you'. In other words, it gets you nowhere.

[Maeght]

The reality is that my conscious awareness (me) can invoke choices, drive my thoughts, perceive the sensory inputs of my body, appreciate the beauty of nature, contemplate the reality of my existence, drive my thirst for knowledge, pray to God, and many more things which are totally beyond the capacity of uncontrolled deterministic activity of my physical brain cells.

Why are they are beyond that?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

BH keeps asserting that it is an emergent property, but without any definition of how conscious awareness works, this remains an unprovable assertion, and to my mind a totally illogical one.

What BH actually "asserts" is as follows:

1. That emergence - ie, the phenomenon in systems of properties that are not properties of the constituent parts – is well understood.

2.  That there's nothing inherently different or unique about consciousness that would exempt it from being an emergent property, and moreover that it's entirely consistent with emergence.

3. That there are lots of phenomena that aren't yet fully understood that are known to be emergent properties - fluid dynamics and wetness respectively for example. It's not in other words necessary fully to know how something works to know that it's probably an emergent property.

4. The only illogicality here is first just to abandon emergence as the explanation with no good reason for doing so, and second to replace it with an explanation ("soul") that has no definition, no supporting logic and no evidence of any kind.

5. That accepting some complexity as an emergent property as fine, but not when that complexity looks really hard without demonstrating a qualitative difference between them is stupid. It's also fundamentally to underestimate the scale of neural activities in brains - and for this purpose, the only difference between ant colonies and brains is scale.

6. That making unknowable assertions about things "never" being possible is foolish at best, both conceptually and because there are people actively working on the solutions that would show you to be wrong.   

7. That consistently cherry picking from the rebuttals that undo you and ignoring the rest is a type of dishonesty.

In other words, working top down from some religious beliefs you hold a priori to force an explanatory narrative onto reality when it doesn't fit while simultaneously kidding yourself that you're actually working bottom up to find a solution to a real problem is just ass-backwards thinking.     

Hope that clears it up for you. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

This is the fallacy of an argument from authority

No it isn’t.

First, you were only asked whether it didn’t concern you that people working in the field weren’t looking for “souls”, not that they were right not to be.

Second, the argument from authority fallacy only works when it refers to argument from unreliable authority: essentially , ”Fred's right because he wears the biggest hat”. People working in the field on the other hand are listened to because they use reason and logic, publish their results etc – a different argument entirely.

Incidentally, do you not find it curious that you of all people have tried to identify a logical fallacy here, albeit incompetently? Your entire position rests on a series of fallacies, and when this is explained to you rather engage with the problem you just dismiss them as “man-made” as if that gets you off the hook. Suddenly though when you think you’ve identified one it’s a legitimate tactic to deploy. If you had been right about that, would that fallacy alone not have been “man-made” then and so would have been fine to use?

Weird thinking indeed.

[Enki]

This is the fallacy of an argument from authority 

If you want a real 'argument from  authority' rather than a question, look no further than your post 14541, when you set yourself up, quite ridiculously to my mind, as the 'authority', and, on the basis of this, come out with the assertion that "Conscious awareness needs a recipient of information which is beyond the workings of any man made system."

[torridon]

You always seem to miss the point I make that a conscious choice is not random, nor is it the end result of uncontrollable chains of events.  It is simply invoked by an act of conscious free will.  ...

This is simply a matter of definition and logic.  Anything that happens as a consequence of prior events is determined (by those prior events), anything not so determined is random, by definition.  Random means not determined.  Determined means not random.  You cannot just tout some magic immaterial soul around as if that gives you a get out clause from the boolean logic of the situation.  It is a conceptual either / or.   A choice made for a reason is a consequence of that reason. A choice made for no reason at all is random, by definition. Take your pick, there is, ultimately, conceptually, no other possibility.

[torridon]

BH keeps asserting that it is an emergent property, but without any definition of how conscious awareness works, this remains an unprovable assertion, and to my mind a totally illogical one.  The reality is that my conscious awareness (me) can invoke choices, drive my thoughts, perceive the sensory inputs of my body, appreciate the beauty of nature, contemplate the reality of my existence, drive my thirst for knowledge, pray to God, and many more things which are totally beyond the capacity of uncontrolled deterministic activity of my physical brain cells.

Your unprovable assertion underlined above.  The base difference of approach is that Hillside's rationale is drawn from the relevant insights of science, whilst yours is basically a denial of all that.