Here's an amusing exchange.
***
Britney Spears (substance dualist): Mind isn't reducible to matter. It's something completely separate from matter.
Arnold Schwarzenegger (nondualistic materialist): How do you figure?
Britney: Materialist theories of mind can't explain the subjectivity of conscious experience. Qualia, for example. How can materialism explain them? Qualia have a first-person ontology: my qualia are mine alone, radically subjective. They aren't available to everyone else. They don't exist except from my point of view.
Arnold: You're sure you have qualia?
Britney: Of course.
Arnold: OK. I'm sure I have them, but I'm not sure you do.
Britney: What?
Arnold: If I agree that qualia are radically subjective, then you have to agree that it's impossible to confirm anyone else has them. But let me indulge you for a moment. Do you think artificial minds have qualia?
Britney: Hold on a second. I'm not sure I like the phrase "artificial minds."
Arnold: Would you prefer "artificial breasts"? No, wait-- I see that you do. May I grope them?
Britney: Yes. The problem is that you can't really build an artificial mind. You can build something that simulates the mind, perhaps, or at least simulates conscious behavior. But you can't construct something that's actually conscious. The mind isn't material, so it can't be built out of material things.
Arnold: I was afraid you'd take that stance. You realize, of course, that your approach to mind dooms you to permanent ignorance about its fundamental nature.
Britney: I never said that.
Arnold: No, but you implied it. You've made two unprovable claims: first, that mind is immaterial, a claim that places itself outside the purview of scientific inquiry, making it, as Carl Sagan contended, "veridically worthless." Second, that qualia are radically subjective, which makes it impossible to build an argument about minds in general on them. How is this different from solipsism? And by the way, am I pinching your nipples too hard?
Britney: No, that's OK. I like having them twisted, too. Yeah, like that. See what happens?
Arnold: Impressive. They turn into bullets.
Britney: I still don't get the whole "ignorance" thing. I'm a philosopher, Arnold. My entire life has been one long inquiry into the nature of reality. Why would I wall myself off from certain speculative possibilities?
Arnold: Because your fundamental commitments prevent you from seeing a very obvious truth: materialistic assumptions about minds are producing results. We're building artificial entities that exhibit increasingly complex behaviors. Sometime in the future, those entities will manifest behaviors that are, effectively speaking, the products of consciousness.
Britney: You can't be sure of that! Twist harder-- Owww. Yes, like that. Oh, you are Daddy.
Arnold: Why can't I be sure of that?
Britney: Because no matter how complex an entity you build, there's no way to confirm that the thing actually has a mind!
Arnold: Yes-- my point exactly. Your underlying claim is that we can't test for consciousness, ja? That, dear Britney, is an admission of ignorance. What if we devise amazingly stringent, subtle, comprehensive tests?
Britney: You still won't have proven anything. Let's say you make a robot that acts so human it can pass for human. It's still just a machine, just a complex version of a toaster. It won't have a mind, it won't have that immaterial spark.
Arnold: How can I convince you that this hypothetical machine is indeed conscious?
Britney: You can't. It's simply impossible.
Arnold: That's why I say your position is one of willful ignorance. Such a test, you contend, is impossible now, and will always be impossible.
Britney: Back up. I still don't get your accusation about "ignorance."
Arnold: Look, you're saying that the mind is immaterial and that qualia are radically subjective. This means that your side can never really understand what mind is, because you're convinced there's no way to explore it scientifically. Further, you insist there's no way to test for the presence of consciousness, which is tantamount to saying you don't know what consciousness is. After all, when you want to test for something-- to see whether it's there or not-- you have to know something about it. Take AIDS testing. If I don't have any idea what AIDS is, it's kind of hard to design a test for it, don't you think? By the same token, if you don't have a clear idea what consciousness is, it's kind of hard to test for that as well. I infer your ignorance from your inability to envision a test for consciousness.
Britney: Speaking of hard... you're kind of hard right now, too, big boy.
Arnold: Must be the Viagra, because to be honest, I feel no particular attraction to you. Your bullet-nipples taste like Bubbalicious bubble gum. In fact, I think I just chewed one off and you didn't even notice. So much for qualia.
Britney: Anyway, yeah, I see your point. If you don't know what something is, you can't test for it. Good God, your cock is huge!
Arnold: So we're in agreement that substance dualists rely on their own ignorance about mind in order to remain in their little fantasy world?
Britney: I wouldn't be agreeing with you if you weren't massaging my clitoris so expertly right now, you magnificent bastard. Ooooooooh, don't stop!
Arnold: Magnificent bastard. I like that. Just call me Rommel.
Britney: Mmmmm. Rommel the Desert Fuck. It's obvious we're about to bang each other's brains out, but before we do, I've got one more question for you.
Arnold: What is it?
Britney: You seem to be saying that your side knows what mind is, but we both know that that's absolute bunk. The "strong AI" school, for example, talks big about artificial consciousness but hasn't actually designed anything approaching the complexity of the human mind and human behavior. Think about language translation-- one area where the mind shows its power and complexity. Current language translation programs produce awful, mangled translations from one language to another, largely because they're not sensitive to things like intonation, mood, and other holistic, "fuzzy" social realities. I don't think we'll ever be able to develop a perfectly reliable artificial translator. If you guys know so much more about mind than we do, why are you still paddling around in ineffectual circles?
Arnold: You're trying to make me lose my erection, aren't you. But it won't work. I said I took Viagra, so you're still gonna get what's coming to you. By the way-- sorry I munched your other nipple.
Britney: That's OK. They grow back. You're avoiding my question.
Arnold: I think you're being uncharitable. Translation programs are awful, it's true, but developing more advanced programs with a greater sensitivity to context isn't an impossibility. Why does your side constantly run to the "It's Impossible!" bunker? Bunch of girly-men! As to your deeper question: No, we don't know more about mind than you do, but we at least put forth theories and act on them. What has your side produced aside from unprovable claims and a host of objections? Are you any closer to solving the problem of mind? Is philosophy any closer to solving any of the basic philosophical problems? Don't make me laugh!
Britney: Laughing makes guys cum harder.
Arnold: Our side begins with a simple assumption: mind is totally dependent on matter for its existence. Every bit of progress we've made in the field of artificial intelligence has been predicated on that assumption. There has been no evidence-- none-- that we are on the wrong track. In the meantime, all those critiques of materialism result from a deliberate attempt to ignore the progress we've made, or to denigrate it as not being real progress at all. I'm amazed at the lengths to which people will go in order to preserve the illusion that they are angels in human clothing. What, in the meantime, has your side done to contribute to knowledge about consciousness? From where I stand, it's done nothing! You have nothing to say to that?
Britney: Mmmpf. Mmmmmmpffff.
Arnold: Whoa. Sorry.
Britney: (pop) Not easy to talk with a big dick in your mouth. Let a girl breathe, huh?
Arnold: Damn-- my cell phone. It's Maria. Look-- to be continued, eh? Again, my apologies about the nipples. If they don't grow back, I'll buy you two new ones. And sorry to fuck your head and run. I know that's rude. (dashes off)
Britney (shouting after him): You've got qualia, Arn, I know it!
Arnold (over his shoulder): No, you don't!
_
qualia, schmalia, i just want artificial breasts.
ReplyDeleteyou're no longer older than me. i am scowling. heh.
testes... testes... one... two...
ReplyDeletethree?!
laughing works for girls too.
ReplyDelete"Qualia have a first-person ontology: my qualia are mine alone, radically subjective. They aren't available to everyone else. They don't exist except from my point of view." The last sentence is a strawman.
ReplyDelete"materialistic assumptions about minds are producing results." This is a false statement. There is nothing in the materialistic assumptions that aids in building complex systems. I don't have materialistic assumptions and I have no doubt that all human behavior can be simulated by automatic systems. I can even give broad outlines of how to go about doing it.
"Look, you're saying that the mind is immaterial and that qualia are radically subjective. This means that your side can never really understand what mind is, because you're convinced there's no way to explore it scientifically." This is only true if by "scientifically" you mean "physically".
"Further, you insist there's no way to test for the presence of consciousness, which is tantamount to saying you don't know what consciousness is." I don't think anyone insists that there is no way to test for the presence of consciousness, just that the proposals so far put forward fail to do it. If you thought you could test for AIDS by tying someone up and throwing them in a lake to see if they floated, I might argue that your test doesn't actually test for AIDS because the floating/non-floating can be entirely accounted for by the theory of boyancy and that there is no reason to posit AIDS effects. I might further argue that you can't know how to test for AIDS until you know what causes it. That is not the same as saying that there is no possible way to test for AIDS.
"There has been no evidence-- none-- that we are on the wrong track." That's because you ignore all the evidence.
This is a false statement.
ReplyDeleteNo; it's merely your judgment that it's a false statement. If it were obviously false, everyone would agree with you. Far better minds than mine disagree, however.
Clear-cut cases are hard to find. We can all agree that living humans breathe air-- a fact so obvious it doesn't even deserve mention. How many facts are that obvious? What's obviously true and obviously false? For some, it's obvious that a guy came back from the dead two thousand years ago. For others, not so obvious.
This is only true if by "scientifically" you mean "physically".
Ah, fantastic! I'm all ears if you have a proposal for non-physical exploration of the nature of mind!
I don't think anyone insists that there is no way to test for the presence of consciousness, just that the proposals so far put forward fail to do it.
This is embarrassingly disingenuous. You and I both know that with every improvement on AI, the same tired insistence will arise: "But there's no evidence that this thing is conscious..." For the moment, I'd actually agree. I think the task for the strong AI camp is formidably huge, and I don't see anything approaching human cognitive/emotive ability happening in my lifetime.
But let's face facts: people are stubborn and suffer from attachment to their ideas (I definitely include myself in this). Substance dualism and other theories involving nonmaterialism aren't going to go away anytime soon-- not because those positions are stronger than materialism, but because people are people and just... won't... let... go.
In the meantime, materialistic theories will continue to be the foundation for better and better AI. Tell me-- what's your feeling on brain implants, "wet circuitry," and so on? Just sci-fi?
That's because you ignore all the evidence.
Ha ha-- indeed? This is why I now have a comments section! Not so people can be snide with lame parting shots, but so they can present their evidence! Go to it! You have the floor! I promise I won't ignore the evidence, though I might question its incontrovertibility.
In the meantime, I'm finding Quining Qualia a fantastic read. I imagine you completely disagree with Dennett.
Sigh.
You did, however, fail to mention whether the dialogue amused you. By your tone, I'm guessing it didn't. Ah, well.
Kevin
I also wrote:
ReplyDeleteWhat, in the meantime, has your side done to contribute to knowledge about consciousness? From where I stand, it's done nothing! You have nothing to say to that?
True: so far, nada from your side. Britney's "mmmmpf" response seems to be about right. Given the superstitious nature of substance dualism, I imagine people are expecting a solution to appear miraculously.
Kevin