Consciousness

[untermensche]

... I'm not a robot.

Prove it. I'll buy you a coffee.

Humans design and build robots. They imagine them.

I know of no other kind.

Prove there is another kind.

I'll buy you coffee.

 

[untermensche]

Nothing objective about a button push to GUESS when you THINK you are starting some kind of mental activity.

As far as allegedly guessing which arm will be moved that is not guessing. That is knowing AFTER the mental decision has been made.

And all these experiments can be shot to hell if you tell the subject they are allowed to randomly disobey and do nothing, but pretend until the last second they will comply.

That is the will at work. Telling people to fuck off, I'm not a robot.

You have made assertions like these with no evidence. You respond to point-by-point rebuttals with reassertion of your opinion.

So I will not answer your points, but make a counter-assertion of my own: The feeling of consciousness is what it is like to be a biological robot.

I have, in fact, presented two videos supporting this position. I would refer you to Daniel Dennett's Elbow Room.

Dennett is the last person you should be referring me to.

So you have stopped responding and merely post erroneous videos?

That's what people with losing arguments do.

You can call a human a biological robot or a biological bag of cheese, it doesn't explain ONE thing.

 

[fromderinside]

Already done that. Morruzzi et Magoun 1948.

That's an explanation in using anatomical references anatomical terms.

This response can elicited by stimulating the medical bulbar reticular formation, pontile and midbrain tegmentum, and dorsal hypothalamus and subthalamus.....

Nothing but anatomy. No physiology. External artificial electrical stimulation does not count as physiology.

First. Fixed it.

RE: your critique: Really?

Reticular Activating System https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229478255_Reticular_Activating_System

The reticular activating system consists mostly of ascending noradrenergic and cholinergic projections originating in the brainstem. These projections enter the cortex, thalamus and basal forebrain, and mediate increases in wakefulness and arousal. Contemporary hypotheses describe these systems as actively regulated afferent components of forebrain circuits mediating defined cognitive processes.Keywords:midbrain reticular formation;thalamus;cortex;basal forebrain;arousal
Reticular Activating System (PDF Download Available).

In physiology addressing sources and activity centers are shorthand used in presenting functional descriptions through which specific behaviors are determined. The reticular formation, for instance, is a rostral Pons locus where all senses share information and processes to the cortex and where transaction (any interruption actually) of pathways from it to the cortex result in animal somnolence.

Geez.

Any idiot can verify the chemistry of projections through these regions and can even see stained exemplars of these tracts. Just anatomy, eh. That these anatomical aspects demonstrate what other functional components underlay function is what the experiments were all about.

By the way it would be advantageous to the reader if you cited from where you got your "" which is my standard approach (see above)

Also it's a fairly done deal when standardized hypotheses exist for a process.

When you're exposed, you repeat yourself with attempted misunderstood hair splits.

tard

 

[untermensche]

Mentioning a neurotransmitter is not a physiological explanation of an experience.

A physiological explanation is explaining what specifically is happening that creates a subjective experience. And demonstrating it in some way.

Saying "pathway" is just an anatomical explanation.

You are embarrassing yourself.

 

[fromderinside]

Subjective is dependent on objective.

nuff sed

 

[DBT]

But the timing is not guessing. The button press is objective, the prior activity predicting which button will be pressed is objective. All of which is supported by physics, ie, there must be a sequence of physical events, sensory input, processing, memory integration, etc, prior to conscious experience. There is no escaping this. Which renders your claims null and void.

Nothing objective about a button push to GUESS when you THINK you are starting some kind of mental activity.

As far as allegedly guessing which arm will be moved that is not guessing. That is knowing AFTER the mental decision has been made.

And all these experiments can be shot to hell if you tell the subject they are allowed to randomly disobey and do nothing, but pretend until the last second they will comply.

That is the will at work. Telling people to fuck off, I'm not a robot.

You should understand that response time between perception is measurable, you can test it yourself with online reflex tests to get an exact figure of your range of response times and your average;

https://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime

As you should understand that the fMRI experiments are able to show brain activity prior to visual/motor action response allowing predictions to be made before the subject is aware of which button to press.

Plus you continue to ignore the physics of cognition. Inputs precede transmission of information which precedes processing and memory integration which precedes conscious representation.

You can't escape the fact of this, so you have to ignore it because it doesn't suit your own beliefs, yet it makes your position obsolete, null and void, unfounded, without support, legless. You have nothing, sorry.

 

[Kharakov]

... I'm not a robot.

Prove it. I'll buy you a coffee.

Humans design and build robots. They imagine them. I know of no other kind. Prove there is another kind. I'll buy you coffee.

Prove that you aren't a robot.

 

[untermensche]

... I'm not a robot.

Prove it. I'll buy you a coffee.

Humans design and build robots. They imagine them. I know of no other kind. Prove there is another kind. I'll buy you coffee.

Prove that you aren't a robot.

You turn reason on it's head.

It is up to those making positive claims to prove them. Negatives cannot be proven.

Those that claim humans are merely robots must first define specifically what they mean by "robot" and then prove a human fits the definition.

 

[untermensche]

Nothing objective about a button push to GUESS when you THINK you are starting some kind of mental activity.

As far as allegedly guessing which arm will be moved that is not guessing. That is knowing AFTER the mental decision has been made.

And all these experiments can be shot to hell if you tell the subject they are allowed to randomly disobey and do nothing, but pretend until the last second they will comply.

That is the will at work. Telling people to fuck off, I'm not a robot.

You should understand that response time between perception is measurable, you can test it yourself with online reflex tests to get an exact figure of your range of response times and your average;

https://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime

As you should understand that the fMRI experiments are able to show brain activity prior to visual/motor action response allowing predictions to be made before the subject is aware of which button to press.

Plus you continue to ignore the physics of cognition. Inputs precede transmission of information which precedes processing and memory integration which precedes conscious representation.

You can't escape the fact of this, so you have to ignore it because it doesn't suit your own beliefs, yet it makes your position obsolete, null and void, unfounded, without support, legless. You have nothing, sorry.

There is NOTHING objective about guessing when you think some metal activity is beginning.

It is a purely subjective exercise. Of course even subjective guesses can be timed to the millisecond, if a button is pushed. And the times can be averaged. But that doesn't make them objective.

In terms of saying something about consciousness, this is a silly joke.

It amazes me people can swallow it and even defend it.

 

[untermensche]

Subjective is dependent on objective.

nuff sed

Subject is what knows about the world, not object.

Object is just that which gives rise to subject.

Object creates a subject capable of moving the arm with a thought. That is the nature of the subject.

You haven't said anything.

 

[George S]

... I'm not a robot.

Prove it. I'll buy you a coffee.

Humans design and build robots. They imagine them. I know of no other kind. Prove there is another kind. I'll buy you coffee.

Prove that you aren't a robot.

You turn reason on it's head.

It is up to those making positive claims to prove them. Negatives cannot be proven.

Those that claim humans are merely robots must first define specifically what they mean by "robot" and then prove a human fits the definition.

Ummm, It was you who made the positive claim. "...I'm not a robot." Please prove your assertion.

A robot, in this context, is a thing composed of non-conscious parts whose composition is conscious. That is, although composed of unconscious parts the whole has memories, a sense of self, and can make self-directed plans for the benefit of all those unconscious parts. I taught AI.

 

[untermensche]

... I'm not a robot.

Prove it. I'll buy you a coffee.

Humans design and build robots. They imagine them. I know of no other kind. Prove there is another kind. I'll buy you coffee.

Prove that you aren't a robot.

You turn reason on it's head.

It is up to those making positive claims to prove them. Negatives cannot be proven.

Those that claim humans are merely robots must first define specifically what they mean by "robot" and then prove a human fits the definition.

Ummm, It was you who made the positive claim. "...I'm not a robot." Please prove your assertion.

A robot, in this context, is a thing composed of non-conscious parts whose composition is conscious. That is, although composed of unconscious parts the whole has memories, a sense of self, and can make self-directed plans for the benefit of all those unconscious parts. I taught AI.

It is the rational default position unless something positive can be demonstrated.

Only positive claims need proving. Only positive claims can be proven.

I would start with objectively defining "robot". Using terms like "conscious" without specifically defining them doesn't count.

After that you have to prove a human fits the definition.

Good luck.

 

[fromderinside]

Subjective is never objective. It isn't even a very good representation of the objective. The real world is what is. So, for subjective, knowing is out of the question.

amplified nuff sed.

 

[Kharakov]

... I'm not a robot.

Prove it. I'll buy you a coffee.

Humans design and build robots. They imagine them. I know of no other kind. Prove there is another kind. I'll buy you coffee.

Prove that you aren't a robot.

You turn reason on it's head.

It is up to those making positive claims to prove them. Negatives cannot be proven.

Those that claim humans are merely robots must first define specifically what they mean by "robot" and then prove a human fits the definition.

Ummm, It was you who made the positive claim. "...I'm not a robot." Please prove your assertion.

A robot, in this context, is a thing composed of non-conscious parts whose composition is conscious. That is, although composed of unconscious parts the whole has memories, a sense of self, and can make self-directed plans for the benefit of all those unconscious parts. I taught AI.

It is the rational default position unless something positive can be demonstrated.

Only positive claims need proving. Only positive claims can be proven.

I would start with objectively defining "robot". Using terms like "conscious" without specifically defining them doesn't count.

After that you have to prove a human fits the definition.

Good luck.

... I'm not a robot.

Prove it. I'll buy you a coffee.

Humans design and build robots. They imagine them. I know of no other kind. Prove there is another kind. I'll buy you coffee.

Prove that you aren't a robot.

You turn reason on it's head.

It is up to those making positive claims to prove them. Negatives cannot be proven.

Those that claim humans are merely robots must first define specifically what they mean by "robot" and then prove a human fits the definition.

Ummm, It was you who made the positive claim. "...I'm not a robot." Please prove your assertion.

A robot, in this context, is a thing composed of non-conscious parts whose composition is conscious. That is, although composed of unconscious parts the whole has memories, a sense of self, and can make self-directed plans for the benefit of all those unconscious parts. I taught AI.

I just want unter to prove they aren't a bot- that they actually experience stuff, and aren't just 1s and 0s. And now I want them to by me a coffee.

 

[untermensche]

Subjective is never objective.

Says what?

 

[untermensche]

I just want unter to prove they aren't a bot- that they actually experience stuff, and aren't just 1s and 0s. And now I want them to by me a coffee.

If you wait for people to prove negatives you will wait a long time.

It is up to those who claim a human is a robot to try to demonstrate it. We assume a human is not in the absence of a demonstration.

You have not even defined "robot" no less shown a human is one.

 

[Kharakov]

I just want unter to prove they aren't a bot- that they actually experience stuff, and aren't just 1s and 0s. And now I want them to by me a coffee.

If you wait for people to prove negatives you will wait a long time.

Unter, I'd accept you as a human-bot hybrid if you and/or your human programmer buys me a coffee at a coffee shop. I mean, at the very least, there has to be a human consciousness involved somewhere, unless you are a Planck scale consciousness.

 

[untermensche]

If you wait for people to prove negatives you will wait a long time.

Unter, I'd accept you as a human-bot hybrid if you and/or your human programmer buys me a coffee at a coffee shop. I mean, at the very least, there has to be a human consciousness involved somewhere, unless you are a Planck scale consciousness.

That was very articulate and not robot-like in the least.

Very good.

 

[Kharakov]

Unter, I'd accept you as a human-bot hybrid if you and/or your human programmer buys me a coffee at a coffee shop. I mean, at the very least, there has to be a human consciousness involved somewhere, unless you are a Planck scale consciousness.

That was very articulate and not robot-like in the least.

Very good.

Who programmed you?

 

[fromderinside]

Subjective is never objective.

Says what?

One measures a thing it weigh 100g

One looks at a thing and guesses it is 100g.

Both methods come to the same conclusion. Is the subjective guess objective?

Is the guess an objective fact? No. the guess may well have been 70g It is not verified by material means. It remains a guess.

In other words why subjective can never be objective.