transplant stuff from GA -- I like all this serious discussion for once. 

... that is the question.... but be what ? 

I have a hunch that everybody wants to talk about this, and everyone has their own ideas and everybody thinks it's a mostly philosophical thing (that's why they think they can speak even though they have very little factual knowledge).

But I feel that science and observation and research and all that has a lot to give still in this regard and it can effect the "masturbatory" and "vacuous" philosophy that unfortunately gets so easily detached from the real world.

I don't want to stifle talking, but I encourage you people to read about how the brain works. Neurons and all that. Read also about artificial neural networks. I can say it has changed my approach to these questions.

Philosophy is of course needed. Science is built on it. And philosophy can try to show us if we in fact are asking the wrong questions with science, since progress doesn't seem very fast.

Sorry if I sounded cocky. I was. But it was the shortest way to demonstrate the point. :( 

We are discussing some questions here which aren't outside the bounds of science at all - whether there is an energy cost to consciousness, whether it is an adaptation, whether it is computable/can be produced with Turing complete computing devices, etc. Imo answering those with a philosophical style where you can take whatever assumptions you like for the purpose of argument isn't quite kosher.

One of the essential activities in philosophy is defining terms, and in this case I think I was fairly clear that I was using the word to describe a nonphysical/nonmaterial phenomenon: the subjective experience of existing. I even contrasted that with a bunch of mental/brain phenomena which I claimed were governed by physical laws, such as thinking, memory, awareness, etc.

I think Thomas Nagel argues fairly well that this subjective experience is outside of the objective physical model science provides.

However, if you believe as I do that the physical world is real, and you're willing to make some assumptions like "other humans are definitely conscious" and "things that function in ways similar to humans are also similarly conscious," then there is still room for science to explore the nature of the boundaries of consciousness -- the boundaries in time (birth and death), the boundaries in quality (drunkeness, dreams, deep sleep,) and the boundaries in scope (the "subconscious", automatic brain functions, etc.)

We can certainly explore how the brain works using science, and by "we" I mean scientists, not you and me. But I don't think that somehow muscles philosophy out of defining terms and asking questions. 

I'm taking issue with calling consciousness a nonphysical /nonmaterial phenomenon... It just sounds too much like "and then magic ensues" / "everything happens on an astral plane". I know you probably don't mean it, but I'm bad with words here.
It's trying to circumvent the scientific approach completely, if I exaggerate, throwing out all hope that we could somehow reduce the phenomenon by science to something more handlable.

If a very simple feedforward neural network can take data and turn that into decisions, refining it layer by layer... (It was not discovered until the eighties as it was assumed everything would be linear.. but it turned out not to be so!)

If a person's consciousness can be shut on and off with anesthetics...

Science is edging in on these questions from both the bottom-up and the top-down directions!


It is fascinating to deal with little children, who are only learning to speak... it is interesting to try to set yourself in their position. How do they see the world? And what about even smaller babies?

What about chimpanzees? Dogs? Cats? How well are they "in"? How many of you have ever had a dog? 

Philosophy has it's place, but I don't agree that you should use it to determine the validity of a question that can be settled empirically. I see the question of whether consciousness and subjective experience are physical events as very much empirical, since one can (in theory) dip into whatever mechanics of thought are physical and discover what can be achieved physically.

I will look into Nagel. I suspect whatever his argument is, it could be trumped by an accurate physical theory of consciousness. 

but I think that there remain questions that science hasn't yet addressed. My view, is that it is most probable that eventually every question that can be asked meaningfully will be approached by science: neurology is obviously into territory once occupied exclusively by philosophy. Given science's history of finding phenomenon and explaining it, it seems reasonable to think that this will continue in the future and that the amount of things explained by science will continue to increase, and there will be nothing that science is incapable of addressing.

I'm vastly curious about things like copying the brain. I don't know if this is possible, there is an arguement that the mind will be unable to comprehend itself (comprehending the thing that is doing the comprehending). Personally, I think absolute determinism is the most fucked up thing ever, I mean the idea of it that consciousness is an illusion and that no choice has ever been made. This would seem to defeat all religious and even humanist-type ideas, because they all rely on the idea of choice. I do hope that free will exists, I find determinism simultaneously depressing and amazingly fucked up.

The article that started this discussion did have a few flaws. First of all the writer discounts the fact that educated people do believe in God. Sure society doesn't take religious moralizing very seriously anymore, but it's not as if the belief in God is actually dead. And furthermore this view is held not only by tons of dumbasses everywhere, but also by highly educated professionals (my example being Catholic professors and scholars). Secondly, the author clearly admires Nietzsche perhaps beyond what is credible. Personally I am a huge Nietzsche fan, but I never mistake what I like for what is true. I love Nietzsche's writing style, it's very vivid and entertaining, and many of his points show "penetrating psychological insight" (to abuse a cliche). But he is not quite so prophetic as the author claims.

I like Hume, he was awesome and did a lot to reinvigorate philosophy and move it forward. His skepticism, was so awesome. Kant, on the other hand, I can't stand. He's just the last and greatest of a long line of philosophers who take religion as a starting point and who use philosophy as a scaffolding to support their previously existing religious beliefs. I'm not against the idea of religion, but I don't like the idea of a core belief set which is unchallengable, which Christianity, Islam etc seem to take the form of rather too often. 

...exploration of the topic might in turn become relevant to game design, as we establish the ground for a thoughtful discussion of AI. Yay for inertia, for taking the burden of tolerance from GA peeps who don't want to be involved. 

If absolute determinism is actually true, then I don't think we lack free will. We don't have it, either. The idea of will itself is flawed at that point.

Or...? 

is that I'm using a nonstandard meaning of "consciousness." I tried to explain what I mean in earlier posts, but I should probably just make up a new name for it. But read Nagel; I think he makes a pretty good case for the nature of subjective experience.

Now, on to the issue of whether philosophy is of any value, or science is totally where it's at.

It is true that historically, philosophy's reach was much larger, and included many things now under the domain of science. As science gets more sophisticated, it becomes possible to truly examine parts of the universe that we could only speculate about before. This includes things such as medicine, chemistry, the formation of planets and stars, the composition of matter, etc. BUT, first of all it is foolish to believe that all questions are accessible to scientific inquiry given the current level of scientific sophistication. And second of all, there are "meta" questions which i believe are categorically not accessible to scientific inquiry. For example, morality. For example, why is there something rather than nothing? For example, why do I exist as a conscious self rather than just as a fully functional human zombie?

I guess my attitude is a human zombie, a perfect zombie clone of me, could be sitting here typing this instead of me. He would think about it just like I do, and decide what to type just like I do, and be making the same arguments I am, and the only difference would be that *I* would not be here to feel it happening. 

"good" philosophy is a kind of sience!
i'd suggest all of you to have a look at the "naturalistic school" within modern philosophy. you'll find your questions discussed from a rational and science friendly perspective in every detail there. (i'm studying phil for 4 years now, so if you want titles or names, ask me.) 

..philosophy is art to have lot of opinions about nothing... and also knowing nothing about everything... As I was not really good in philosophy at school, I'm completely reluctant, and really close to the allergy, with philosophy. I'd rather prefer science and Cartesian approach... At least if you have a headache: it has a real explanation ! 

.. for mathematics, and physics !! Hurrah ! 

art to have lot of opinions about nothing... seems you are a (extremist) supporter of C.P. Snow's views.
please remember: cartesian = coming from
descartes (a philosopher/mathematician)
other examples:
kant (phys/phil)
leibniz (math/phil)
russell (math/phil)
frege (math/phil)
cantor (math/phil)
einstein (phys/phil)
heisenberg (phys/phil)
bohr (phys/phil)
wittgenstein (logic/phil)
popper (math/phys/phil)
d.c.dennett (bio/phil) [read!]
etc. etc. etc.
would you still say that one can either do phil XOR science?