GE Morton wrote: ↑May 5th, 2022, 11:31 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: ↑May 5th, 2022, 7:40 am
GE Morton wrote: ↑May 4th, 2022, 12:17 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: ↑May 4th, 2022, 8:01 am
I am trying to answer these questions with the Machine Consciousness Experiments. I'm sorry that you have missed the whole point of the Experiments.
You've missed the point of the comment, namely, that you need to have answers to those questions before you set up any experiments; if you don't, you will have no means of interpreting the results of those experiments (we covered this).
Yes, and I disagree with your premise that questions need to be answered before the Experiment. The Experiment itself will answer many questions.
No, it won't. It can't, because you have no means of linking the effects you observe with the (pseudo-)cause you postulate, or ruling out all of the other conceivable causes for the effect. Someone else could claim the effect you observe was caused by invisible leprechauns, or N-rays beamed from Betelgeuse. You need to understand and be able to characterize your postulated cause well enough, precisely enough, to be allow specific predictions of the effect from specific conditions in the cause. As I said, we've covered this before. Your explanation of the effect --- "some interference from something in 'conscious space'" --- would be no more informative than "goddidit." The effect would no more support your "conscious space" than it would those leprechauns.
GE Morton wrote: ↑May 4th, 2022, 12:17 pm
There is nothing new about the assumption that consciousness is a manifestation of some sort of "alternative plane/dimension/realm" of "reality." It is as old as Plato, if not older; also called the "spirit realm," "eternal Forms," etc. That "paradigm" --- substance dualism --- was abandoned by most because claims about that supposed "realm" are unverifiable, unfalsifiable, and theoretically sterile --- they yield no verifiable predictions or any useful information.
But none of those things have actually been discovered and confirmed.
Neither has your "conscious space." Nor would the experiments you describe confirm it, for the reasons above.
Science cannot know the other things Consciousness might be doing because Science only measures Neural Activity and does not Measure the actual Conscious Experience.
That's correct, because "conscious experience" is not measurable. As I said, it is not available for empirical analysis. Neither would your experiments measure it.
Science would have to be able to independently Measure Conscious Experience in some way to come to the conclusions you have stated.
No, it doesn't need to measure it; it only needs to observe it, and consistently relate it to neural phenomena. You would have to do the same, and correlate it with events or changing variables in your "conscious space," which you could independently verify and measure.
True, so any conclusions you have made about Conscious Experiences are Speculations and nothing more. Your talk of certainties is founded on Ineffable and Unanalyzable phenomena.
Oh, certainly not. That conscious experiences are caused by physical processes is beyond dispute. All conscious experiences that we know of, at least. And, of course, we have no grounds for postulating conscious experiences anywhere other than those we ourselves experience --- which we know to be produced by neural processes --- and those we impute to other creatures who have nervous systems similar to our own --- on the basis of the behaviors they exhibit. If you wish to claim that conscious experiences may exist without a neural substrate, then the burden is upon you to produce an example.
"Consciousness" is not a "thing." Not a substance, not a plane or aspect or dimension of "reality." It is a property of physical systems of a certain type --- nothing more.
Ok, this is getting repetitive now. I don't agree with what you are saying and have tried to Explain why I don't agree a bunch of times now. I have failed to convince you, and don't see a way to do it, since you have ignored or rejected my best attempts. We are at an Impasse, but it was fun while it lasted.