Steve Storck

I don't take it seriously. I was overcomplicating the situation, when I really only need to test the logic. The situation around the logic is probably not all that important. But, then again, I'm 43, so I'm not all that young, either.

Ah, I see that my example is keeping us from focusing on the real logical dilemma that I am trying to ensure that my logic is sound. If person A makes a claim that is without supporting evidence, and person B makes the opposite claim without supporting evidence, then they are both coming to irrational conclusions. Person C that simply rejects the claim of person A is the only person that is being rational. Is there any case where, without any evidence either way , when someone says that "X is true!" that someone can rationally say "X is false!"?

I agree completely. My whole premise hinges on understanding neuroscience enough to replicate what the brain does, whatever it does that results in consciousness. It very well may be impossible. Even with a full understanding, recreating real consciousness may be beyond our grasp because of something else, whatever it may be. Our perceptions, though we are perceiving something real, are only impulses that our senses relay to our brains. In a simulation, the program (or whatever it might be at that point in our technological advancement and capabilities) would provide stimuli, and the corresponding programmatic senses would relay those signals for interpretation. This is beginning to diverge from the logic that I am trying to vet, though. Though I am only discussing a possibility, it is not something that we can immediately disregard, since we are physical beings and, this suggests, our consciousness is most likely a result of our physical selves. Unless I have missed something, and there is no chance of technology approaching this point, I would still like to explore the logic and test if it is sound. I would be agreeable to applying the situation to a different narrative if we could come up with something analogous, but much more concrete to avoid tying things to possibilities. Can you think of a better scenario to apply my dilemma to? This, I think, illustrates my point, and this is probably where my dilemma lies. Within the context of your knowledge, you can still arrive at an irrational conclusion. While, within your contextual knowledge, it is *entirely rational* to reject implausible or unsupported conclusions, making an opposite conclusion is equally unsupported and, therefore, it is irrational. If someone theorizes the electromagnetic spectrum, but we have no way of gathering empirical evidence that such a spectrum outside of our sensory perception exists, then it is quite rational to reject the theory. The burden of proof is, of course, on the person that endorses the unproven theory. Today, we are quite well aware that it exists, and so much of our technology utilizes it. But someone concluding that *it does not exist* would be wrong, and since they have no evidence that it does not exist, they are coming to an irrational conclusion. Another example would be if your wife wakes you in the night, telling you that there is an intruder in the house. If you reject this notion, you could search the house, and look in every room and every space that could conceal an intruder. After a thorough search, you can rationally conclude that such an intruder does not exist, since the laws of physics dictate that a certain amount of matter can only fit into adequate space. However, if your wife tells you that there is a mouse in the house, you could look around and not see it, but since you could not check every space that could conceal a mouse, you would be irrational in concluding that the mouse is not there.

Since you cannot separate consciousness from identity and, specifically, the fact that one is consciously aware of their identity, we cannot suggest that input, processing, and output (no matter how complex) constitutes consciousness. For consciousness, something would have to necessarily be *self aware*. I do not know what else would be required, either, or if it is even possible. I acknowledge that this is the problem that renders most of these thought experiments less useful. I also assure you that I am not trying to use consciousness as a floating abstraction or as a stolen concept. My ideas are about actual consciousness that includes self-awareness. Quite simply, we never know something until we know it, as with any technological or intellectual/philosophical advancement. We would need to understand neuroscience very well before the question of creating consciousness with technology could be seriously considered. With the debate that I was having, talking about this possibility is interesting, but I am more interested that given the situation where it *is* possible, the logic of coming to either conclusion of "definite true" or "definite false" are equally irrational, and that the rejection of both conclusions being the only rational option.

Can you quote me on this supposed lie? I wanted to show that I fully understand the axioms, and that I do not deny them. If you look at my original post, I said: If someone showed me that I had an error in the premises, then I would have explained the debate and acknowledged my error, and that would have been that. It seems that your response is emotional (one of frustration) and you didn't just like my topic when I revealed the rest of it. I understand that somewhat of a thought experiment is not of much interest to many Objectivists, and I wanted to at least make sure that I did not have any errors in my understanding of the axioms, which would have lead to incorrect premises on my part. But if you can point out an actual lie, then I will apologize. Remember my first paragraph where I warned that people my not want to deal in hypothetical questions? I would apologize, but you freely gave your time despite the warning. Either way, I appreciate your time and input.

@Nicky that is my thought, as well. If we are ever able to understand and recreate it, then that mechanism would exist, have identity, and possess consciousness. Now for the rest of it. Let's say that a simulation was created, and there were conscious software entities in this simulation. This simulation was started, and it was a long-running, hands-off simulation. Maybe the entities would develop philosophy, etc, like we do. They might even philosophize that they are in a simulation, and discuss the programmer. Some people would believe that there is a programmer, and others would reject it. Still, others would insist that the programmer does not exist. The programmer and the entities all exist in the same reality, but the software entities could never know anything about anything outside of the simulation. A belief that there is a programmer that made the simulation would be irrational, because there would be absolutely no proof or even a shred of evidence that the programmer exists and built the simulation. Likewise, it would be irrational for others to conclude and insist that there is no programmer for the same reason that it is irrational to think that there is one. The only rational group would be those that simply reject the notion as irrational and leave it at that. I'm just poking at the logic of this one. Certainly, the burden of proof is on those that state that there is a programmer, since that is a pretty strange notion. But there would never be any way to know. Obviously, this is a parallel to the atheism vs theism debate. I am not comfortable discussing a god or a deity, because there are too many attached notions and premises for my taste. A discussion is meaningless when you discuss something that is apart from reality, and created it. Obviously, only something that exists could ever do anything. I reject mysticism entirely, and I reject the notion of a god. I only wanted to discuss the irrationality on both extremes: those that insist that something exists when there is no way to gather evidence or proof, and those that insist that something definitely does not exist without any way to gather evidence or proof. But, as always, those that come up with a notion have the burden of proof. Edit: I didn't mention that there are two camps of atheism -- those that reject the idea of a god/deity/etc, and those that firmly assert that there is none. The rational approach is to reject, and not make a similarly-unfounded assertion or conclusion. I want to reiterate (before the flames heat up!) that I reject mystical claims about any deity or supernatural being, or any god in general. I only want to discuss the irrationality and logic of drawing conclusions that cannot be proven. I would like to hear everyone's thoughts, and if I am making any logical errors that I am missing. Thanks again!

Hello, all. The title might strike everyone as an absurd question, and it is, in a way. Currently, consciousness is only an attribute of animals. But, if you might indulge me in a hypothetical that strikes me as at least somewhat possible, I would appreciate it. For those who loathe dealing in hypothetical questions, I completely understand. The field of neuroscience is always progressing. If, in the next century or two, great progress is made, along with some breakthroughs here and there, and we gain a very good understanding of how the brain works, including new ideas for circuitry, processing, storage, architecture, and other things, it might revolutionize the field of artificial intelligence. Surely, you know where I am headed with this. Since we are Objectivists, and since we reject mystical notions of a soul or any other irrational idea that provides us with consciousness, it seems possible that we could create software, or computers, that are self-aware. If they are self aware, then that seems to meet the criteria for consciousness. The software/computer would exist, would have a sense of identity, and possess consciousness. Is this a fair assessment? Am I violating any of the principles of the three axiomatic concepts of existence, identity, and consciousness? I am currently participating in a debate, and I have gotten thoroughly flamed for my suggestion, but it seems like the other people in the discussion are assuming that I mean something that I do not mean. I will gladly expand on the ideas discussed in the debate, but I wanted to get some feedback about the initial premises of the discussion before I move onto the other concepts. So, taking the above possibility into consideration, if you even deem it to be a possibility, is consciousness only possible in biological organisms? Thanks in advance, Steve