At which point will the simulation become reality?
This is the pertinent philosophical question. At what point can we say that the dummy is self-aware?
I honestly doubt the dummy will ever become self-aware because consciousness, in my view, is a particular trait which transcends physiology. It is “infused” from a source “above” nature.
I will here repeat a point I made in another forum. What would the evolutionary purpose of consciousness be? Why would nature bring about a state of being where humans can “witness” to their existence unless this capacity is tied somehow to transcending nature?
It would seem much more efficient in a wholly material world to simply carry out stimulus-response reactions to get along most efficiently in the causally connected material world. I am thinking here of professionals in sport who repeatedly practice moves to make them automatic, of “second nature,” to eliminate the influence of conscious thought, so they do not have to “think” what to do but merely respond “naturally.”
Animals may have high levels of programmed code in their neurological systems to allow just this kind of automatic response to nature that pure athletes are trying to achieve.
If automatic kinds of responses are more efficient in the material world, then what would be the point of consciousness? I can only think of one purpose for consciousness: to transcend a strictly material, physiological existence; to introduce “free agency” into nature so that the actions of human beings are no longer strictly tied to causal chains. Humans are the “free-radicals” existing to originate new causal chains because we have at our fundamental core, a nature which is free from matter. We transcend matter and that could only have come from a source which also transcends matter.
I think it is prudent to use the good old duck principle: if that being behaves as if it was self-aware, then it is self-aware. If that being behaves as if it experiences pain, then it does experience pain. Neither self-awareness nor pain can be measured directly (at least for the time being), so we are left to use indirect methods and make our decision.
Appearances can be deceiving.
The distinction between artificial and natural (real) is just a matter of technology. Just because something is artificial it does not make it inferior.
Well there is still a matter of pedigree and purpose. Nature has an ancient pedigree, human technology not so much.
We still do not have very great an understanding of how or why nature acts as it does to bring about and sustain life, yet we think ourselves capable of monkeying around with the delicately balanced order in nature even when we don’t understand it. Trial and error may not be such a good strategy when the potential for great harm to the order rests in the balance.
Let me continue later…
Looks like this is the fundamental difference in our views. I consider the ability to abstract thinking as a necessary precursor to consciousness. You seem to think otherwise.
Here is my thinking on why abstract thinking is not necessarily connected to consciousness. They are fundamentally different.
What happens in abstract thinking? A subject of “analysis” is compared to many instances of that kind and a conclusion is drawn. EG. I conclude this is a “tree” because I have a concept “tree” that I have abstracted from past instances of “tree-like” objects. I can compare this instance of tree to the generalized abstract concept “tree” and see if the instance “fits” the concept.
In humans, this abstracting process is directed in a more or less conscious manner when we “think,” but it may be the fact that we are conscious beings that makes the process seem to be integrally tied to our consciousness. The process may not be so tied necessarily. In computers and, I suspect, animals, this process is programmed into the processing sequences engaged in by the computer or animal’s brain. Far from requiring consciousness, abstract “thinking” can occur without consciousness.
Perhaps, because you, ateista, are solely directing your abstract thinking process that you believe it to be necessary for consciousness. This may be an errant conclusion.
The fact of consciousness is a very unique experience. We do not abstract it from anywhere else, nor can we compare it to any other experience because it is entirely one of a kind – I alone can experience my consciousness, I have no other consciousness with which to abstract or compare it. It is unique to me.
Here is another point. Some experiences are primary. They do not come from abstracting or conceptualizing. The perception of colours, for example, is like this. I immediately perceive green, red, black, yellow or white. From that experience, I can take the next step and “bundle” certain colours into the abstract colour concepts of “greenness” or “redness.” However, my first experience of those colours, when I first became “aware” or conscious of green or red did not involve abstracting, just pure experience.
This is also true for pain. It is also true for “self” consciousness. We encounter self-awareness as a primary experience. It is not abstracted into a concept from experiences with lots of selves. It can’t be because there are no other selves available to me. I am confronted with the brute “fact” of my existence, no concepts required. In fact, concepts tend to blur or distort the experience, to “water it down” so to speak and make it less intense and less real.
Do I need to think abstractly to experience these primary experiences of colour, pain, self-awareness, etc. No. However, since thinking abstractly is part of our “hard-wiring” it is easy to conflate the two and see them as aspects of the same thing – intelligence. I don’t think intelligence is even necessary for consciousness. It may be for making sense of the world, but not for simply experiencing it, at its rawest, most basic form.
It seems that many posters happen to agree with me.