Jaron irritates me. He talks himself in circles and it seems whenever Eliezer makes a good point contrary to something Jaron has said he either distracts or laughs it off. Ironically, I think Jaron's failings in this discussion come from ideology. He seems transfixed on this idea that Eliezers position is comparable to religion by making these generalized and ultimately inadequate parallels. When his arguments fail he, quite religiously, falls back onto some vague, self-righteous notion that's hard to dispute. When these fail it doesn't phase him to say "well, that's just what I believe." Doesn't he see that he is the truer ideologue?

jaron lanier!!!! coool! BHtv is starting to look up these days!

Cool!
Whatta treat. I like Eliezer. I like his grasp of his data. I can get past the smug confidence of his ‘superior intelligence’, because he’s still humane, if verging on superciliousness. He knows lots of stuff even if he’s relishing his cocksureness. I’m not as smart as him, but he makes some things accessible. Jaron, on the other hand, is one of my heroes, since maybe 1978 ot so, as he must have been to anyone who relished The Whole Earth Catalog. He commands respect from such as me simply for his collection of musical instruments. When you factor in his leadership in areas of thought in science, he kinda invalidates the usual containers and fences.
I’ve always been a big fan of invalidating fences. Down with enclosure! Spread the wealth! This d-log embodies, more explicitly than might normally be possible, a puer/senex contest, the young and the old contending for leadership, for who has gotten further down the road, who understands better the challenges and fruitful opportunities. Young buck, as ’twere, full of his confident mastery versus the old fool who has spent a whole lot of time on that side-track, the highway, and a lot of other back roads and has a

Quoting ed fielding: ... a puer/senex contest, the young and the old contending for leadership, for who has gotten further down the road, who understands better the challenges and fruitful opportunities. Young buck, as ’twere, full of his confident mastery versus the old fool who has spent a whole lot of time on that side-track, the highway, and a lot of other back roads and has a better map of the potholes and ruts...

Ed, you are really waxing poetic! This diavlog's going straight to my iPod.

That was a nicely matched pairing. These guys ought to have the opportunity to publicly debate on a regular basis (hint.) Even if I didn't understand a word they were saying (and I'm making no claim about how much I understood) the back and forth was incredibly engaging. Each of them concentrates his ferocious skepticism on different aspects of what they seem only sort of agree is something like the same broad project. By the time they've moved off a specific topic, your belief in your ability to understand what to believe about it begins to seem seem questionable. That, to me, is the highest praise possible. I hope we see more of both guys, together and separately.

This idea that you could have a physically identical copy of a human being but except with the "consciousness" subtracted away is so ridiculous that it's hard to see how anyone takes it seriously. I think people only adopt it because they think there's some contradiction between the fact of subjective experience and the idea that the world is purely physical. But there's no contradiction. That feeling in your head is just what it feels like to be the specific physical system that you are. Sometimes to hear these debates you would think that every time a human was born a great tear opened up in the fabric of the universe and the Ancient of Days was seen to bestow a soul on the new member of the race. People, we have the ability to create human consciousness in the laboratory. You take a human egg and sperm, which by every conceivable test appear to be purely physical entities and certainly do not appear to have any relationship to consciousness; you fertilise the one with the other; you allow the fused product

Quoting eric: Lanier argues that a three-digit IQ has specious precision, but he doesn't understand statistics. If you are estimating a number with a large standard error, the point estimate is still 'scientific' and 'valid'; those who assume there is no standard error are making a mistake, but the point estimate is still good. To group data by, say, the closest standard deviation would impart bias. What does he propose, that those with IQs from 116-125 be called '120'? That would mean not only do you have standard error from the test, but a standard error from the grouping that would be about as large, compounding the standard error.

I think part of his point is that there's reason to assume that the values generated by the test have any particular mapping to anything useful, since it's unclear what exactly they purport to measure. I think you're making an argument based on the idea that the values are just imprecisely measured. That's not really what I heard Lanier trying to say.

That's exactly right! I would like like to add that when Lanier is cornered he seems to revert to nervously mentioning his great accomplishments and then impulsively attacks the ideas of the Singularity (saying that they should just stop their research) without any explanation as to why other than because *he* says so and then ever addresses the question at hand. I had high hopes for Lanier but Eliezer won me over.

I very much enjoyed the diavlog, and not just because I kept waiting for Lanier to launch into the scat part from "Freak on a Leash"...

Quoting kidneystones: Finally, a really, really bright individual nails Dennett to the wall. Bob Wright spent nearly an hour trying to get Dan to admit that he doesn't have a shred of hard evidence to back up his deeply-held belief that there is no God.

I've only watched a few bits of the diavlog, and really must pull myself away from BhTV to do some work, but let me just say quickly: I also think Dennett is hopelessly wrong about both religion and consciousness, and I (I don't know about you) view consciousness as the deepest mystery there is after "why is there something rather than nothing?" But in the parts of the diavlog I saw, Eliezer's general sharp, intellectual approach to the topic struck me as precisely what is needed if we are to have any hope of making progress on understanding consciousness. His questions and challenges that I heard were penetrating and to the point, and I believe must be faced squarely even by those who think current theories of consciousness are babyishly primitive (as I do), or suspect, like Jaron (and me), that consciousness may involve something "metaphysically special." By the way, even if consciousness does

Great diavlog. Fascinating to listen to or an outsider. When they can predict the date computers are gonna take over the world come back on Bloggingheads and give us a heads up.

I used to argue for the possibility and importance of a mysterious thing also, though I wouldn’t have described it that way. I changed my mind after reading this: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/10/got-crisis.html (Yes, I'm a big fan of Eliezer’s writings.)

I liked the notion of "epistemological modesty."

Hi all, This is just a brief visit to thank BhTV for presenting a perspective on consciousness. Eliezer and Jaron are a great pair. They are both very knowledgeable, one with a more pragmatic approach and the other indulging in more meta ‘abstraction’ to include motivation, dogma, religious goals, and ‘spirituality’. Needless to say I had only superficial understanding of the AI related concepts discussed. I do agree with Jaron about the importance of not only tolerating ‘uncertainty’ (metaphysical ambiguity), but of valuing its preservation in order to avoid a pointless direct pursuit of the unreachable. Of course, Eliezer will ask “why is it unreachable?” From a pragmatic perspective one has to believe that it may be reachable to advance knowledge, but one has to know that it will be unreachable or it will become meaningless. That’s the nature of the unknowable. These abstract concepts can be very easily misinterpreted as religious. I do object to using the term ‘spiritual’ because the connection with magical, and religious belief is too loaded with negative connotations for the secular mind. I have made that mistake myself, for lack of better terminology. But if there’s anything I’m learning is to eradicate the ready

This is just a brief visit

Ojalá que te quedes un rato. Wonder Hussein Ment

Quoting kidneystones: Zogby puts McCain up by 1. [...] I place myself firmly among those who believe in alien abductions; demons living inside toasters; an all-knowing all-loving higher power principle that cannot be defined, described, or understood ...

For the record.

Quoting kidneystones: Imagine George Bush funded to the tune of 600 million with a million or so willing zombies ready to spew forth any ridiculous talking points on demand.

Why imagine? You're describing 2000-2006. Only, your numbers are low, in both cases.

MORE LIKE THIS

This was an enjoyable romp. I especially enjoyed Jaron Lanier and his mockery of some of more bizarre claims of AI fanatics, e.g. their insistance on denying the reality of consciousness. But since I have never understood why such intelligent people should be intent on denying what is the condition for denying (or affirming) anything (if you believe, as I do, that only self-conscious minds are capable of thinking ABOUT anything), I must confess I was predisposed in his favor. Reading books by Dennett or Pinker or Dawkins I always reach a point of exasperation where I want to throw their Darwinian rubbish into the nearest rubbish bin...but usually decide to keep them anyway: perhaps one day enlightenment will dawn and I shall become a zombie.

Quoting Francoamerican: This was an enjoyable romp. I especially enjoyed Jaron Lanier and his mockery of some of more bizarre claims of AI fanatics, e.g. their insistance on denying the reality of consciousness. But since I have never understood why such intelligent people should be intent on denying what is the condition of denying (or affirming) anything (if you believe, as I do, that only self-conscious minds are capable of thinking ABOUT anything), I must confess I was predisposed in his favor. Reading Dennett or Pinker or Dawkins I always reach a point of exasperation where I want to throw their Darwinian rubbish into the nearest rubbish bin...but usually decide to keep them anyway: perhaps one day enlightenment will dawn and I shall become a zombie.

Darwinian rubbish? What do you propose as an alternative to that "rubbish?"

Quoting AemJeff: Darwinian rubbish? What do you propose as an alternative to that "rubbish?"

Nothing. Darwinism is valid as far as it goes and I have nothing but respect for evolutionary biologists. Dennett, Pinker and Dawkins are not scientists: they are propagandists for metaphysical positions which are neither confirmed nor discomfirmed by evolution.

Quoting Francoamerican: Nothing. Darwinism is valid as far as it goes and I have nothing but respect for evolutionary biologists. Dennett, Pinker and Dawkins are not scientists: they are propagandists for metaphysical positions which are neither confirmed nor discomfirmed by evolution.

Dennett is a philosopher, Pinker and Dawkins are both scientists. All of them are respected and influential both in and out of their respective fields. By "propagandists" I take it you mean they have stated positions with which you have disagreements. Added: to be clear, Dennett is a philosopher of science.

Quoting AemJeff: Dennett is a philosopher, Pinker and Dawkins are both scientists. All of them are respected and influential both in and out of their respective fields. By "propagandists" I take it you mean they have stated positions with which you have disagreements.

Added: to be clear, Dennett is a philosopher of science.

Thank you for your useless correction. In fact I am quite aware of their status in academia and, unlike you I seem actually to have read them too. Whatever their speciality, they take philosophical or metaphysical positions, which are NOT based on science. If you cannot understand that simple distinction, don't bother to respond because I will not bother to reply!

Quoting Francoamerican: Thank you for your useless correction. In fact I am quite aware of their status in academia and, unlike you I seem actually to have read them too. Whatever their speciality, they take philosophical or metaphysical positions, which are NOT based on science.

If you cannot understand that simple distinction, don't bother to respond because I will not bother to reply!

Logic, dude. Your conclusions should follow from your premises. Your assertions should be consistent with one another. To wit: Franco:

Dennett, Pinker and Dawkins are not scientists

Jeff:

Dennett is a philosopher [of science], Pinker and Dawkins are both scientists.

Franco: (paraphrasing) Stop bringing up irrelevancies! Besides I've read them and you haven't! And I won't talk to you unless... (I don't quite understand the unless part here. I'm inferring that I won't. Oh well.)

Quoting AemJeff: Logic, dude. Your conclusions should follow from your premises. Your assertions should be consistent with one another. To wit:

Franco: (paraphrasing) Stop bringing up irrelevancies! Besides I've read them and you haven't! And I won't talk to you unless... (I don't quite understand the unless part here. I'm inferring that I won't. Oh well.)

What nitpicking. And no you clearly don't understand the distinction. But I am replying anyway. So I guess I AM illogical. A scientist can speak as a philosopher and a philosopher can speak as a scientist. If you have read Dennett you should know that he constantly invokes scientific evidence and theories to justify his philosophical or metaphysical positions, among which are certain controversial views of mind. The same goes for Pinker and Dawkins in the opposite direction: they give philosophical or metaphysical interpretations of Darwinian ideas. I have no objection to the theory of evolution, as I said. I just don't think evolutionary biologists and philosophers who follow them have ever said anything about consciousness and thought that makes an ounce of sense. That was the point of my original posting.

oh, of course, i mean, obviously: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/155...3:57&out=04:26

Quoting Francoamerican: What nitpicking. And no you clearly don't understand the distinction. But I am replying anyway. So I guess I AM illogical.

A scientist can speak as a philosopher and a philosopher can speak as a scientist. If you have read Dennett you should know that he constantly invokes scientific evidence and theories to justify his philosophical or metaphysical positions, among which are certain controversial views of mind. The same goes for Pinker and Dawkins in the opposite direction: they give philosophical or metaphysical interpretations of Darwinian ideas.

I have no objection to the theory of evolution, as I said. I just don't think evolutionary biologists and philosophers who follow them have ever said anything about consciousness and thought that makes an ounce of sense. That was the point of my original posting.

It's taken you this many posts just to name, not even describe, your problem with what these folks have written. And yet each of your responses has been an attack on my understanding. An inference which, while it might well be true, certainly isn't evident from my fairly pointed posts. It's an interesting approach, I guess: no matter what your opponent says, just keep implying they don't know what they're

Quoting AemJeff: It's taken you this many posts just to name, not even describe, your problem with what these folks have written. And yet each of your responses has been an attack on my understanding. An inference which, while it might well be true, certainly isn't evident from my fairly pointed posts. It's an interesting approach, I guess: no matter what your opponent says, just keep implying they don't know what they're talking about. Substance free, but often effective.

No actually it's taken you at least this many posts to understand, and frankly I doubt if you have understood much of anything. Basta! By the way there are several errors in your English.

Quoting Francoamerican: By the way there are several errors in your English.

There always are. Thanks for noticing,

Computer scientists talking about philosophy is about as interesting and informative as philosophers talking about computer science.

We are, of course, conscious critters: pain hurts, etc. But why are you so confident that consciousness is where thinking happens?

Quoting Francoamerican: What nitpicking. And no you clearly don't understand the distinction. But I am replying anyway. So I guess I AM illogical.

A scientist can speak as a philosopher and a philosopher can speak as a scientist. If you have read Dennett you should know that he constantly invokes scientific evidence and theories to justify his philosophical or metaphysical positions, among which are certain controversial views of mind. The same goes for Pinker and Dawkins in the opposite direction: they give philosophical or metaphysical interpretations of Darwinian ideas.

I have no objection to the theory of evolution, as I said. I just don't think evolutionary biologists and philosophers who follow them have ever said anything about consciousness and thought that makes an ounce of sense. That was the point of my original posting.

Dawkins doesn't say anything about the nature of consciousness. Pinker and Dennett say different things. While Pinker basically agrees with Lanier that it's a mystery, Dennett, god blessed him, explained the consciousness.

This was disappointing. Lanier could not defend ANYTHING he said! He constantly changed the topic or argued from ignorance. We don't know so we can't know. Or im a really smart guy who has worked in this field for a long time and i have not found this idea useful. Ok valid but really limited statement. Also true that people can treat AI as a religion and it can make them nutty. But just because people believe wrong things about something does not make the subject itself wrong. example: quantum mechanics. It is true that i have found AI and singularity people off putting but Laniers inability to defend his position has moved me to be more sympathetic to the efforts of strong AI people. I think the one thing i would like to see defended is the time frame argument for AI. You do act different whether you think AI is imminent or that it is not. It could be ten years or it could be a few thousand. It does not seem decidable. PS. Lanier started this BHTV clip trying to argue for epistemological soundness when considering AI statements and here rejects

Lanier loses this argument just as Bob Wright lost it to Dennett.

First of all, I am completely in the tank for the Lanier position, namely that brain does not equal consciousness. I did think, however, that Lanier had only intuitive reasons for subscribing to this position and was not at all an articulate proponent of the idea that consciousness does not equal brain. I take it for granted that the strong AI position is that the brain is a machine, in some sense. The discussion should have come around to various phenomena of consciousness that would be difficult, if not impossible, to program: free will, most notably, but also mood, internal time consciousness, consciousness of death, just to name a few features of human consciousness that for me appear to defy mechanistic explanation. To this list one must add the general quality of inwardness, what we call the self. The list is rather long. But Lanier, while he has good intuitions about how the battle between AI proponents and what I will call the phenomenological account of consciousness should come out, doesn't really seem to have thought analytically about the battle. I just came away thinking, OK, here is another person who is obviously very bright, but he's not really engaging the argument. One of

Some of the (scowling?) faces Yudkowsky makes to some of the nonsense Lanier says are priceless.

Quoting ledocs: First of all, I am completely in the tank for the Lanier position, namely that brain does not equal consciousness. I did think, however, that Lanier had only intuitive reasons for subscribing to this position and was not at all an articulate proponent of the idea that consciousness does not equal brain. I take it for granted that the strong AI position is that the brain is a machine, in some sense. The discussion should have come around to various phenomena of consciousness that would be difficult, if not impossible, to program: free will, most notably, but also mood, internal time consciousness, consciousness of death, just to name a few features of human consciousness that for me appear to defy mechanistic explanation. To this list one must add the general quality of inwardness, what we call the self. The list is rather long. But Lanier, while he has good intuitions about how the battle between AI proponents and what I will call the phenomenological account of consciousness should come out, doesn't really seem to have thought analytically about the battle. I just came away thinking, OK, here is another person who is obviously very bright, but he's not really engaging the argument.

One of

I didn't get the impression that Lanier rules out robots who are fully conscious. My understanding was that he only rejects the idea that such a dramatic contingency/singularity is around the corner, that AI is significantly moving in the right direction, that such intelligence is likely to emerge in a computer or in cyberspace. I can't imagine anyone really arguing that we will never create supersmart creatures. If technology doesn't self-destruct, it seems a good bet that in a couple of hundred or a thousand years, we will have created or seeded conscious creatures smarter than us. We may get them through genetic tweakings and brain enhancements or combinations of machines and bodies. There's no reason to believe that consciousness and selfhood (personhood) are limited on the high-intelligence end of the spectrum to homo sapiens. We'll eventually figure out how to build it.

I'm so impressed...

damn! jaron's really conceited. even more annoying and pointless than his stuff on Edge. i don't really care about AI and he makes me care even less

I'm surprised by how well received this diavlog was. I found it to be very pretentious and going nowhere! I don't even feel this was appropriate for the Science Saturday slot. There wasn't much of what I would consider science, but instead a whole lot of philosophy. My summary of this diavlog is as follows...
Jaron: Eschew (this) philosophizing.
Eliezer: No. I guess I'm in the minority here; I totally agree with Jaron. But I have almost no appreciation of philosophy anyway, hehe. If Jaron is ever to be convinced to come back to bh.tv, I think he should be paired up with someone with the purpose of diving into developing capabilities, and not get bogged down in how it relates to intelligence or human-ness.

For two guys who know EXACTLY what they are talking about, that was the WORST POSSIBLE introduction to the concept Zombies for the uninitiated.

Lanier does some of the exact evasions that so irritate the Dennett-minded. He makes a big deal of saying that he has consciousness and accuses Yudofsky of denying his. But he is palpably hostile to any attempt to explain it. He says we must remain "humble" and not be curious about the concept, or at least not too actively curious. He also repeats his claim to be doing the "real" AI work -- ie the recreation of specific brain functions -- that obviously do not get to the level of full-brain consciousness, and derides attempts to model consciousness as ideology. He seems to be the one contending with a limiting ideology. If it is the case that some general-AI-minded programmers made some bad decisions in the past, and those mistakes were carried down, it still doesn't render the entire field of computer modeling of human consciousness a pernicious ideology. That is what animates people like Yudofsky. It's fantastic that Lanier has done such great work on the visual cortex; it probably is more productive to the world. But what is it that bothers him so much about the interest

Quoting MikeDrew: Lanier does some of the exact evasions that so irritate the Dennett-minded. He makes a big deal of saying that he has consciousness and accuses Yudofsky of denying his. But he is palpably hostile to any attempt to explain it. He says we must remain "humble" and not be curious about the concept, or at least not too actively curious. He also repeats his claim to be doing the "real" AI work -- ie the recreation of specific brain functions -- that obviously do not get to the level of full-brain consciousness, and derides attempts to model consciousness as ideology. He seems to be the one contending with a limiting ideology.

If it is the case that some general-AI-minded programmers made some bad decisions in the past, and those mistakes were carried down, it still doesn't render the entire field of computer modeling of human consciousness a pernicious ideology. That is what animates people like Yudofsky. It's fantastic that Lanier has done such great work on the visual cortex; it probably is more productive to the world. But what is it that bothers him so much about the interest

Quoting Wonderment: I didn't get the impression that Lanier rules out robots who are fully conscious.

My understanding was that he only rejects the idea that such a dramatic contingency/singularity is around the corner, that AI is significantly moving in the right direction, that such intelligence is likely to emerge in a computer or in cyberspace.

I can't imagine anyone really arguing that we will never create supersmart creatures. If technology doesn't self-destruct, it seems a good bet that in a couple of hundred or a thousand years, we will have created or seeded conscious creatures smarter than us. We may get them through genetic tweakings and brain enhancements or combinations of machines and bodies.

There's no reason to believe that consciousness and selfhood (personhood) are limited on the high-intelligence end of the spectrum to homo sapiens.

We'll eventually figure out how to build it.

If that is what he believes i wish he would have said that. If he was arguing for no AI right now that would have made sense but he seemed to be arguing something stronger and broader and not communicating well. I found it frustrating to

That would be great! I want to hear him describe how he modeled computer vision on how the visual cortex works and how he designed a neural chip!

As well you should be.

Quoting kidneystones: This is typical of materialists.

Hmmm, that's the same language that the Discovery Institute uses. Quite telling. There's not much point in arguing with people who espouse "magical thinking."

"Dan Dennett is a religious extremist"

What an laughable thing to say. Lanier proved himself to be an idiot within the first 10 seconds of this diavlog, and it went downhill from there. Methinks his dreads have grown inward.

Yeah, I ended up turning this one off. A Bob/Dennett rematch diavlog on consciousness would be awesome but otherwise, I think there are several episodes of MeaningofLife.tv that cover some of this same ground (the concsciousness stuff, that is) much better. I felt like I had somehow stumbled into a dormitory where a computer-geek and hippie-philosopher were holding a post-bong rap session.

Lanier's bio. He's been the subject of an awful lot of content-free putdowns here for reasons I can only guess. I think his professional accomplishments tell a story that contradicts that point of view.

Quoting AemJeff: Lanier's bio. He's been the subject of an awful lot of content-free putdowns here for reasons I can only guess. I think his professional accomplishments tell a story that contradicts that point of view.

Agreed, but this diavlog was nearly as problematic as the criticisms of it. uncle eb put it well in his last sentence. I was disappointed, though I was interested enough to watch the whole thing. I just wished that these guys would have spent less time talking about stuff that isn't at all decidable at the moment. The nature of consciousness, and getting too many levels down into epistemology, are topics that I am not interested in hearing about, as I'm sure you already know. The discussions never seem to go anywhere. Apologies to the philosophers for my philistinism.

Quoting bjkeefe: Agreed, but this diavlog was nearly as problematic as the criticisms of it. uncle eb put it well in his last sentence. I was disappointed, though I was interested enough to watch the whole thing. I just wished that these guys would have spent less time talking about stuff that isn't at all decidable at the moment. The nature of consciousness, and getting too many levels down into epistemology, are topics that I am not interested in hearing about, as I'm sure you already know. The discussions never seem to go anywhere.

Apologies to the philosophers for my philistinism.

This is one of those cases, I guess, where I'm way out of step with the consensus; but I was glued to this one. I was fascinated by how evenly matched these guys seemed (though I can see that not everybody agrees with that view, either.) To me each of these guys' personalities seems like an answer to the other, and somehow despite or, more probably, because of the friction I thought there was more light than heat.

Quoting AemJeff: This is one of those cases, I guess, where I'm way out of step with the consensus; but I was glued to this one. I was fascinated by how evenly matched these guys seemed (though I can see that not everybody agrees with that view, either.) To me each of these guys' personality seems like an answer to the other, and somehow despite or, more probably, because of the friction I thought there was more light than heat.

I agree that they were evenly matched and that their personalities clashed nicely. I also liked both of them, in and of themselves, as they came across on camera. If the topics weren't anathema to me, I would have been raving about this diavlog, I'm sure. I'd like to see them both come back.

To clarify, I'm all for late-night stoner rap sessions, this one just didn't grab me (maybe I'm too wrapped up in election stuff). I'd like to see both guys come back.

Quoting hamandcheese: Jaron irritates me. He talks himself in circles and it seems whenever Eliezer makes a good point contrary to something Jaron has said he either distracts or laughs it off. Ironically, I think Jaron's failings in this discussion come from ideology. He seems transfixed on this idea that Eliezers position is comparable to religion by making these generalized and ultimately inadequate parallels. When his arguments fail he, quite religiously, falls back onto some vague, self-righteous notion that's hard to dispute. When these fail it doesn't phase him to say "well, that's just what I believe." Doesn't he see that he is the truer ideologue?

My thoughts exactly.

Interested discussion, and fun to listen to. I agree with Lanier that we should not pretend to know more than we actually know, but it seems that he falls that trap himself by stating that consciousness is "not a machine". How does he know that?

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: To clarify, I'm all for late-night stoner rap sessions ...

Me, too, but only as a participant.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: I felt like I had somehow stumbled into a dormitory where a computer-geek and hippie-philosopher were holding a post-bong rap session.

I'm going to name my first child Ebeneezer.

Quoting JoeK: Dawkins doesn't say anything about the nature of consciousness. Pinker and Dennett say different things. While Pinker basically agrees with Lanier that it's a mystery, Dennett, god blessed him, explained the consciousness.

Not true: Dawkins substitutes the philosophically extremely meager theory of "memes" for consciousness. The fact that he has so little to say about consciousness is a serious defect in any scientific theory. True: Pinker and Dennett differ in significant ways, but they are both scientific materialists in their attempts to "explain" consciousness (language in the case of Pinker) by something that lies below consciousness.

Last time I checked, the scientific world could not even define consciousness ...much less how it happens...if it was seperate from the brain, etc. etc....Consciousness-spirit-soul go hand in hand IMHO and that is a part of life which one day science will integrate hopefully...Quantum will lead us there....Hmmmm, is my brain just an organ for consciousness to reside??? When my physical body dies will my consciousness (which is energy) die also?? Can you kill energy or does it just change form??

Hmmmmm....metaphysical?? Quantum and metaphysical are getting to be good buddies....What was yesterday metaphysical, today can be scientifically verified....SO don't scoff at metaphysics...

No-one knows as of to date...Consciousness is a wide open field that only the brave explore...lol

Quoting zoedog88: Hmmmmm....metaphysical?? Quantum and metaphysical are getting to be good buddies....What was yesterday metaphysical, today can be scientifically verified....SO don't scoff at metaphysics...

I wasn't scoffing. What I was criticizing was surrepticious metaphysics, i.e. the tendency of philosophers and scientists to use science or pseudo-science to deny the reality of consciousness. The denial of consciousness is is a metaphysical position. It is called, or used to be called, "materialism." More recent philosophers seem to prefer the term "naturalism," no doubt because it sounds more pleasant---like organic food or nudism. I see no reason to deny what I experience every time I open my mouth to say that something is true or false. I suppose that makes me a Kantian. I really don't understand how some science, whether it be evolutionary biology or AI, can explain (away) the reality of consciousness. The condition of possibility of knowledge (to speak with Kant), and above all the possibility of scientific knowledge, is the existence of the human mind. The very ability to demonstrate that something is true or false (for example, the theory of evolution), real or unreal (for example, numbers or illusions) etc. depends on the existence of mind. This is not a metaphysical claim, simply an acknowledgement of an

I liked Jaron's comparison of the singularity mysticism with the rapture. It seems to be desire that motivates the singularists predictions as well as Jaron's own notions of a soul. If someone had asked for a definition of consciousness (in the form of a test), much of the debate could have been avoided.