Why are we no soulless automatons?

[CavLancer]

Before my coffee I might qualify.

 

[warpus]

I suggest that if human brains are conscious and their workings are analogous to software, then computers must also be so in some proto-conscious way.

They're not though, they're completely different than human brains and software is completely different than consciousness. The analogy only works on a certain highly abstract level.

There might be some potential for consciousness there, but only in terms of there being processing power and storage. We have no idea what the ingredients for consciousness are, but 2 highly abstract concepts that the human brain happens to posess that a computer also possesses just won't be enough. It'd be like trying to bake a pizza with pepper and flour and that's it.

 

[Borachio]

Exactly my point. The analogy between consciousness and software routines, although initially seductive, is simply unworkable, imo.

 

[Perfection]

I can only draw your attention to this sentence of mine:



I suggest that if human brains are conscious and their workings are analogous to software, then computers must also be so in some proto-conscious way.

A word processor is software, must all computers and all software be at least some form of proto-word processor?

Consciousness being (or being analogous to) software, doesn't mean all software is conscious. We can easily state that consciousness is (or is analogous to) a special sort of software.

 

[Borachio]

Um. Well, yes, thinking about it, I think so. I'm really not sure what a word processor does that all other kinds of computer and software don't do.

I don't think your analogy works all that well, though. Because word processing is hardly the pinnacle of software development. While a lot of people think that the human brain is the peak of self-consciousness.

 

[Perfection]

So what if a lot of people think that the human brain is the peak of self-consciousness? (though I should ask who the heck these peeps are and if it's only the peak of current conscious entities or the peak of all possible conscious entities)

My analogy is only to show the flaw in your thinking.

That is saying human consciousness is (or is closely related to) software does not as you say it does imply that all software is conscious.

 

[Borachio]

Naturally you're at liberty to say so. I remain to be convinced that you're correct.

("These peeps" are all the peeps I've ever met or heard of. I don't say I agree with them. I don't think anyone thinks that the current level of peeps' consciousness is the peak of all possible conscious entities. That wouldn't make much sense.)

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

Why are we no soulless automatons?

I can write a bot named Terxpahseyton and program him to ask "Why are we no soulless automatons?" even though that bot, in fact, could very well be soulless.

 

[Perfection]

Naturally you're at liberty to say so. I remain to be convinced that you're correct.

Well, I guess I'm just confused as to why human consciousness being analogous to software must imply that all software (or all matter) is at least proto-conscious.

Of course, there's another issue in your reasoning. You seem to presume that all software being proto-conscious is absurd and thus would negate consciousness being analogous to software, but why should you be so sure that all software (or all matter) isn't proto-conscious?

 

[Borachio]

Well, you make a good point.

Personally, I see no reason to suppose that consciousness couldn't be analogous to software. Except that, as I was trying to allude to earlier, it means that there's no reason to suppose that individual molecules aren't conscious too.

The only trouble with this is, as far as I can see, that most people don't believe this is so (and it would entail a radically different model of the world than is usual). And I don't see how it's testable, myself.

 

[Cutlass]

But wait... is the question for you, then, "Why are we soul-less automatons"?

Or do you perhaps take it for granted that you are soul-less automatons?

It is what it is. You to will be joining us..

 

[Perfection]

Well, you make a good point.

Personally, I see no reason to suppose that consciousness couldn't be analogous to software. Except that, as I was trying to allude to earlier, it means that there's no reason to suppose that individual molecules aren't conscious too.

The only trouble with this is, as far as I can see, that most people don't believe this is so (and it would entail a radically different model of the world than is usual). And I don't see how it's testable, myself.

It isn't as a rare a belief as you may think. There are plenty of religious and philosophical ideas that extend consciousness, or soul-having to inanimate objects or the world as a whole.

Another way to think of it is to think of the consciousness of things as a spectral property not a having or not having. Maybe I'm more conscious then a cat which is more conscious then a cricket which is more conscious then a flower which is more conscious then a bacterium which is more conscious then a virus which is more conscious then a molecule which still retains some aspect of consciousness, though far removed from that of ours.

As for testability, that's pretty problematic for consciousness in general. How can I test that you are conscious? We need to work around that if we are going to make progress.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I guess maybe you should ask yourself whether a dog is a soulless automaton? How about squirrel? A plant? A bacteria? Where do you draw the line? I don't think there is a line, it's just that our brain's structure has given rise to a conscious that is far more able than the conscious of a dog or a squirrel. Why? I guess complexity, but the details I have no idea about. I've heard it explained as parts of the brain looking in on themselves, each layer looking down below, and the mind being constructed in such meta way, in the end breaking some threshold and giving us that illusion that "we" are fully in charge.

Are you sure that matter is "soulless"?

If consciousness is an intrinsic molecular attribute, human consciousness becomes less of mystery.

As for how one might determine whether a single molecule has "soul" or not, I couldn't begin to guess.

It isn't as a rare a belief as you may think. There are plenty of religious and philosophical ideas that extend consciousness, or soul-having to inanimate objects or the world as a whole.

Another way to think of it is to think of the consciousness of things as a spectral property not a having or not having. Maybe I'm more conscious then a cat which is more conscious then a cricket which is more conscious then a flower which is more conscious then a bacterium which is more conscious then a virus which is more conscious then a molecule which still retains some aspect of consciousness, though far removed from that of ours.

As for testability, that's pretty problematic for consciousness in general. How can I test that you are conscious? We need to work around that if we are going to make progress.

Excellent thinking all. But perhaps there is just one soul and the various limitations to the consciousness of all various things (from molecules to dogs to people) keep us from seeing the "bigger picture". Those limitations would be the source of one's sense of individuality and separateness.

I will leave the testability of such an idea to the Perfection's of the world.

 

[Hygro]

Well, to its conclusion, is even scarier. Not that we could or should be soulless automatons, but that soulless automatons aren't soulless automatons either.


Our computers already experience what it's like to be a computer. Their soul is the experience of their experience. Same for bits of software. Same for oxygen and hydrogen forming water.

 

[Kennigit]

... hydrogen forming water.

Hydrogen's a two-timing **tch when she messes with water.

Sometimes she is even a bit on the heavy side too

 

[Hygro]

I'm so glad you cut that quote to allow me to see/correct my original error

 

[timtofly]

Do things have souls, because that is how we as creatures with souls tend to identify with them? They certainly have not really reached out and attempted to identify with us. Perhaps some fish type mammals have done so.

Just to have the ability to identify as having or not having a soul, is an attempt to define our own experiences. If there is no purpose for such an existences then all animated beings are just programmed to be.

Does not the ability to reason such things out point to the fact that we do have souls, and we can master are own experiences both in a good way and bad way, determinate on our own wills?

 

[warpus]

Exactly my point. The analogy between consciousness and software routines, although initially seductive, is simply unworkable, imo.

Depends on what the comparison is meant to achieve. If all you're doing is saying "It's essentially a bunch of software that runs on a bunch of hardware" then the comparison is apt.

 

[Borachio]

Hmm. But then you could say all sorts of things about the brain. Like it's a just a book. The brain is essentially just a collection of events arranged sequentially, with a beginning and an end.

 

[El_Machinae]

One clue seems to be how 'macro' our consciousness is. We're seemingly incapable of observing the activity of our neurons or even patches of neurons. Now, we can observe the activity of patches of neurons once they reach a certain number. Can you feel if you're sad? Yes, of course you can, but the number of neurons involved in 'making' you feel sad is enormous.