Philosophy Now Forum

I have just watched Transcendence, the movie. I don't know if you have, there's a point in which Morgan Freeman asks the machine -can you prove to have a consciousness?
And the machine replies -and you? Could you prove to have a consciousness?
Morgan Freeman could not reply the machine. Why?

David Handeye wrote:I have just watched Transcendence, the movie. I don't know if you have, there's a point in which Morgan Freeman asks the machine -can you prove to have a consciousness?
And the machine replies -and you? Could you prove to have a consciousness?
Morgan Freeman could not reply the machine. Why?

Consciousness is a concept, like many others, that has no proof, in any way that can be looked at, handled, and examined. It might be reasonably assumed to exist, but there is nothing about it that you can show another, except to be conscious and express yourself. Consciousness is something that we do, not a thing that we can hold.

Ciao doc,
So the machine was right? I mean, in front of a machine asking us to prove of having a consciousness, we can only prove to be conscious and to express ourselves, but even a machine can do this. So, if you were in Morgan Freeman, what would have you answered to the machine? How would you prove to have a consciousness to a machine asking you to prove that?

Morgan Freeman asked the wrong question, there is no answer to the question he asked. The proper question is, "Do you believe that you are conscious?"

Morgan Freeman could ask the machine what proof the machine would accept, and then try to provide it.

David Handeye wrote:I have just watched Transcendence, the movie. I don't know if you have, there's a point in which Morgan Freeman asks the machine -can you prove to have a consciousness? And the machine replies -and you? Could you prove to have a consciousness?
Morgan Freeman could not reply the machine. Why?

If has to be narrowed to down to what is meant by "consciousness". For instance, referring to every person as an "Earthling" might be fine for a briefly visiting space alien, but functionally we ourselves have to deal with the fact that we're subdivided as members of nations, cultures, professions, families, etc.

Obviously a robot is at least aware in some broad or general manner if it successfully navigates around in its environment. The robot at least has some rudimentary routine of self if it is distinguishing its body from other objects and trying to protect itself. But when getting down to more specific issues, does its "consciousness" merely consist of these responses and outer body behaviors causally traced to inner microelectronic processing? Or is it is also generating a qualitative and understood simulation of itself and an external world amidst that oblivion which the latter usually bathes in (a lack of phenomenal and intellectual evidence of its own existence).

I'd frankly having no problem ignoring a discarded robot in distress whose pain was nothing more than the sounds (atmospheric vibrations) issuing from its voice mechanism and the sight of its limbs writhing. "You're a beautiful sight on the outside, Baby, but inside you're just an empty bucket. Adios!" --local street musician / songwriter

thedoc wrote:Morgan Freeman asked the wrong question, there is no answer to the question he asked. The proper question is, "Do you believe that you are conscious?"

So, I would like to know why there is no answer to "that" question...? I mean, if we, as humanity, are not able to prove of having a consciousness, what are we able to do? How can we distinguish from vegetables?

David Handeye wrote:

thedoc wrote:Morgan Freeman asked the wrong question, there is no answer to the question he asked. The proper question is, "Do you believe that you are conscious?"

So, I would like to know why there is no answer to "that" question...? I mean, if we, as humanity, are not able to prove of having a consciousness, what are we able to do? How can we distinguish from vegetables?

I can only say that we can demonstrate that we are conscious, even if we can't define it or prove it.

hammock wrote:

David Handeye wrote:I have just watched Transcendence, the movie. I don't know if you have, there's a point in which Morgan Freeman asks the machine -can you prove to have a consciousness? And the machine replies -and you? Could you prove to have a consciousness?
Morgan Freeman could not reply the machine. Why?

If has to be narrowed to down to what is meant by "consciousness". For instance, referring to every person as an "Earthling" might be fine for a briefly visiting space alien, but functionally we ourselves have to deal with the fact that we're subdivided as members of nations, cultures, professions, families, etc.

Obviously a robot is at least aware in some broad or general manner if it successfully navigates around in its environment. The robot at least has some rudimentary routine of self if it is distinguishing its body from other objects and trying to protect itself. But when getting down to more specific issues, does its "consciousness" merely consist of these responses and outer body behaviors causally traced to inner microelectronic processing? Or is it is also generating a qualitative and understood simulation of itself and an external world amidst that oblivion which the latter usually bathes in (a lack of phenomenal and intellectual evidence of its own existence).

I'd frankly having no problem ignoring a discarded robot in distress whose pain was nothing more than the sounds (atmospheric vibrations) issuing from its voice mechanism and the sight of its limbs writhing. "You're a beautiful sight on the outside, Baby, but inside you're just an empty bucket. Adios!" --local street musician / songwriter

Ciao hammock,
Perhaps I have not understood well, but from that you wrote I could assume that pain is a way to affirm self-consciosness? Could pain, in your opinion, be a proof of having a consciousness? Because, finally, a machine or robot, could never feel pain, or fear. On the other hand, (our) pain are just electrical impulses, synaptic switches. BTW have you seen the movie?

David Handeye wrote:Ciao hammock,
Perhaps I have not understood well, but from that you wrote I could assume that pain is a way to affirm self-consciosness? Could pain, in your opinion, be a proof of having a consciousness? Because, finally, a machine or robot, could never feel pain, or fear. On the other hand, (our) pain are just electrical impulses, synaptic switches. BTW have you seen the movie?

"Consciousness" for me usually means experience -- but again, in formal public usage it should be an umbrella term that subsumes vastly more than that. IMO, experience is unaffected by the presence or absence of modifiers like "self" and "subjective". Another way to put it is the generation and explanation of such "qualitative showings" should not be dependent upon whether or not a brain or computer possesses a running story (grounded in memory) about selfhood. The latter is a kind of sustained, personal identity which gets attached to much if not all of a body's new experiences, because it connects past events together in a coherent or purposeful manner that enhances the drive to survive ("things that happened to ME; these are MY goals and needs which I pursue, etc").

When it comes to the feel or manifestation of pain, however, I suppose it is possible that part of its uncomfortable nature might be derived from this story or conception of a self being applied to it. Some studies indicate that the interpretation of pain being "bad" is lessened by certain drugs (i.e., suffering may not be an intrinsic characteristic of pain, but a judgement arising from relation to stored concepts and conditioning in memory).

Note that the above is based in the context of physicalism, naturalism, science (whatever). When switching to Kant's unadulterated scheme (which easily assimilates natural methodology without doing any damage to it), I could entertain the idea of self being more than a special brain narrative.

I haven't seen the movie; it may be a few years till I passively cross paths with it in a free or ad-supported medium.

hammock wrote:"Consciousness" for me usually means experience -- but again, in formal public usage it should be an umbrella term that subsumes vastly more than that. IMO, experience is unaffected by the presence or absence of modifiers like "self" and "subjective". Another way to put it is the generation and explanation of such "qualitative showings" should not be dependent upon whether or not a brain or computer possesses a running story (grounded in memory) about selfhood. The latter is a kind of sustained, personal identity which gets attached to much if not all of a body's new experiences, because it connects past events together in a coherent or purposeful manner that enhances the drive to survive ("things that happened to ME; these are MY goals and needs which I pursue, etc").

When it comes to the feel or manifestation of pain, however, I suppose it is possible that part of its uncomfortable nature might be derived from this story or conception of a self being applied to it. Some studies indicate that the interpretation of pain being "bad" is lessened by certain drugs (i.e., suffering may not be an intrinsic characteristic of pain, but a judgement arising from relation to stored concepts and conditioning in memory).

Note that the above is based in the context of physicalism, naturalism, science (whatever). When switching to Kant's unadulterated scheme (which easily assimilates natural methodology without doing any damage to it), I could entertain the idea of self being more than a special brain narrative.

I haven't seen the movie; it may be a few years till I passively cross paths with it in a free or ad-supported medium.

Thank you, hammock. As you say, suffering may not be an intrinsic characteristic of pain, but a judgement arising from relation to stored concepts and conditioning in memory, so even a computer or machine has memory, stored files; experience is a stronger concept, I guess, it has much to do with emotions, feelings, insights. Regardless their irrationality. Proving to a machine of having a consciousness, is proving of being irrational, in some way. That's a paradox.

thedoc wrote:

David Handeye wrote:I have just watched Transcendence, the movie. I don't know if you have, there's a point in which Morgan Freeman asks the machine -can you prove to have a consciousness?
And the machine replies -and you? Could you prove to have a consciousness?
Morgan Freeman could not reply the machine. Why?

Consciousness is a concept, like many others, that has no proof, in any way that can be looked at, handled, and examined. It might be reasonably assumed to exist, but there is nothing about it that you can show another, except to be conscious and express yourself. Consciousness is something that we do, not a thing that we can hold.

David, please don't take ANYTHING that doc says, serious.

He probably means well, but can't really grasp reality.

Hi Hex! Come on, give me your opinion about my OP. How would you demonstrate to a machine of having consciousness?

David Handeye wrote:Hi Hex! Come on, give me your opinion about my OP. How would you demonstrate to a machine of having consciousness?

Any one with minimum of knowledge of neurology, would know that some intelligences can work independently or worth together.

What most confuses about consciousness, is that they think it's binary, but when it scales. They don't think of machines able to have low kind of awareness.

Specially with new brain chips from IBM I don't doubt machines able to have awareness on low lvl, when they can respond to outside stimuli.
Scientists have even condensed a primitive worm brain into a robot.

Many refuses the idea of awareness, because machines can't improvise, but ..so can't so many humans, and that is besides the point of awareness.

Unfortunately too many will reject awareness out of ignorance, when they haven't read about the topic, this really makes me miss admission to philosophy, so we don't have to deal with fools and ignorant, ..then I'm a foolish person and ignorant about so many things.

HexHammer wrote:

David Handeye wrote:Hi Hex! Come on, give me your opinion about my OP. How would you demonstrate to a machine of having consciousness?

Any one with minimum of knowledge of neurology, would know that some intelligences can work independently or worth together.

What most confuses about consciousness, is that they think it's binary, but when it scales. They don't think of machines able to have low kind of awareness.

Specially with new brain chips from IBM I don't doubt machines able to have awareness on low lvl, when they can respond to outside stimuli.
Scientists have even condensed a primitive worm brain into a robot.

Many refuses the idea of awareness, because machines can't improvise, but ..so can't so many humans, and that is besides the point of awareness.

Unfortunately too many will reject awareness out of ignorance, when they haven't read about the topic, this really makes me miss admission to philosophy, so we don't have to deal with fools and ignorant, ..then I'm a foolish person and ignorant about so many things.

Thank you, Hex. Very interesting. I could almost assume that improvisation is a great intuition of your point of view. Once I read of multiple electric switches in electrical circuits, such as chips or synaptic links, if I don't remember bad I read that humans may think in parallel mode, while every kind of machine may compute only step by step, even if at the speed of light, impossible to humans. Improvisation is a good point, but perhaps machine could reply that its random mode of computing could be a way to improvise, I guess.
Anyway, I agree and enjoyed all that you wrote.