The hard problem of consciousness

[Hokulele]

Who am I kidding, I like almost any pie.

Heh, now that I am guilty of a galloping derail, I will try to get the conversation back on topic. My favorite description/solution to the Hard Problem of Consciousness is the one put forth by V.S. Ramachandran in the chapter titled "Do Martians See Red?" in his book Phantoms in the Brain: Probing the Mystery of the Mind. To try and summarize the entire chapter, he basically postulates three laws or criteria for qualia that can determine whether or not a system is conscious. He then applies those criteria to people (using the blind spot as an example), neurological patients (using someone who lost part of her visual system as an example), and bees.

The three criteria for qualia are: 1) The input is inflexible, 2) the output is flexible, and 3) the input must be stored long enough in the brain for you to do something with it. He explains these three criteria with the example of seeing a cat's tail extending out from under a couch. The fact that you see a cat's tail is inflexible. You can't suddenly start seeing a moped sticking out from under the couch. The concept that there is a cat under the couch is flexible. It could be a severed tail, it could be a pig with a cat's tail grafted in place. You have to be able to retain the cat's tail input long enough to make some kind of decision. The actual decision that there is a cat under the couch is the qualia.

For his counter example, he uses the bee waggle dance to lead a hive to a food source. The location of the food source is inflexible and the bee can retain the memory long enough to return to the hive and dance. The reason Ramachandran claims the bee isn't conscious is that it does not have flexibilty in the output. It has to do the proper waggle dance.

There is a lot of discussion on the particular neural pathways that substantiate his point on why these three criteria are all that is needed, and how such as system could have developed and how it could work. All I can say is, read the book.

 

[Dancing David]

Point being, language, concepts, and thoughts are very limited
in expressing this. only direct experience can do it.

That is a waffle, what is indescribable, really stop and ponder.

 

[Darat]

through subjective experience.

I'm not able to convey the experience of tasting chocolate ice cream, through concepts and ideas, I know any explanation falls short of the real thing.
I believe you can have the same experience, and realize how you can't explain it to other.

Just like any explanation of my "ran". So why is running not a "hard problem of locomotion" but experiencing is a "hard problem of consciousness"? It only becomes a problem when you start with the assumption that the ill-defined "consciousness" is of a special class of whatever.

 

[Robin]

Actually, we can. The cool thing about science is that we can test our assumptions, and determine whether they were good assumptions in the first place. It may, for example, be only X amount of AI research until conscious machines (or sufficiently similar to be externally indistinguishable) exist. In which case, we would be validated in the assumption that a sufficient computing model is suitable to prove the physical basis of consciousness.

What I meant is that we can't right now. We don't have enough information. That we will be able to test these hypotheses, I don't doubt.

 

[Robin]

Heres one more example that might narrow it down. Lets say we want to build a machine that does nothing but experience emotion. No reasoning no thoughts, and most inportantly no sense perception of any kind. only the emotions. Lets say the emotion is intense happiness. We all know what happiness feels like, we just strip all acompaning thoughts and sense perception away.

On the contrary neither you, nor I nor anybody else has the slightest idea what happiness would feel like when all the accompanying thoughts and sense perceptions were stripped away. It probably wouldn't feel like anything.

 

[westprog]

Well, to me, that suggests that there might not be a problem.

If there is no phenomenon, then there is no problem. However, the very fact that you say

to me

indicates that there is a phenomenon. What needs to be explained is what you (or anyone else) means when you say

me

 

[JoeEllison]

What needs to be explained is what you (or anyone else) means when you say

Not really. If you don't understand what it means, it seems that the misunderstanding is intentional, and possibly agenda-driven. "I" am the collection of dynamic biological parts assembled into general human shape over here. "You" are the body over there, wherever you are. There's nothing altogether complicated about it. Toddlers can figure it out pretty early, I think.

 

[westprog]

On the contrary neither you, nor I nor anybody else has the slightest idea what happiness would feel like when all the accompanying thoughts and sense perceptions were stripped away. It probably wouldn't feel like anything.

As far as we can tell, consciousness is entangled in the physical processes of actual human beings. However, there is no physical theory that goes in any way to begin to explain it. There's no experiment which has been able to quantify the phenomenon at all.

 

[JoeEllison]

As far as we can tell, consciousness is entangled in the physical processes of actual human beings. However, there is no physical theory that goes in any way to begin to explain it. There's no experiment which has been able to quantify the phenomenon at all.

Except, of course, that what you just posted isn't really true. There's plenty of explanation, you just reject all of it out of hand by twisting language to insist on their being a problem without explaining why there's a problem. Interesting how after so many pages in just this thread, the best you "HPC" supporters can come up with is sticking your fingers in your ear and saying "uh-uh, no it isn't, it can't be!" towards any non-woo explanations.

 

[westprog]

Except, of course, that what you just posted isn't really true. There's plenty of explanation, you just reject all of it out of hand by twisting language to insist on their being a problem without explaining why there's a problem.

So what is the physical explanation of consciousness? Is it electrical? Quantum? Algorithmic? What are the equations for the consciousness theory?

It's noteworthy that the theories mostly come from philosophers, not scientists, with the occasional exception such as Penrose - and he's ready to admit that he's barely scratched the surface and may be totally wrong anyway. That leaves this particular area at the Aristotle level.

Having a plethora of explanations does not inspire confidence that the problem is easy. Having explanations that consist largely of handwaving and assertions does not inspire confidence. A thermostat has consciousness but a rock doesn't?

It's up to the people putting forward theories to be able to back them up convincingly. The very fact that there are so many theories makes it clear that none of them have been in any way proven.

Interesting how after so many pages in just this thread, the best you "HPC" supporters can come up with is sticking your fingers in your ear and saying "uh-uh, no it isn't, it can't be!" towards any non-woo explanations.

How can there be a problem? Just count the pages.

What's really strange is that the simple observation that there is not the remotest trace of any meaningfull scientific theory of consciousness at present - which is undoubtedly true - turns one into some kind of mystic. Sometimes "we don't know" is the only honest answer.

 

[JoeEllison]

westprog, have you actually read any of this thread? Including your own posts?

 

[Darat]

So what is the physical explanation of consciousness? Is it electrical? Quantum? Algorithmic? What are the equations for the consciousness theory?


...snip...

So what is the physical explanation of ran? Is it electrical? Quantum? Algorithmic? What are the equations for the ran theory?

 

[JoeEllison]

So what is the physical explanation of ran? Is it electrical? Quantum? Algorithmic? What are the equations for the ran theory?

As far as we can tell, "ran" is entangled in the physical processes of actual human beings. However, there is no physical theory that goes in any way to begin to explain it. There's no experiment which has been able to quantify the phenomenon at all.

 

[Darat]

I'm using the "ran theory" because I do think it provides a useful tool to help expose and demonstrate the assumptions in the HPC that in fact create the HPC i.e. shows that the HPC is the result of circular reasoning, just like good old Descartes' famous whimsy.

 

[westprog]

westprog, have you actually read any of this thread? Including your own posts?

Yes, I've read many of my own posts. I've even thought about them


The basic "explain it away" assertion about consciousness seems to be that because it's undefinable, undetectable and inexplicable, it doesn't exist. I know this not to be the case, because I directly experience it. Unlike the postulated quantity of ran - I don't claim to experience ran, and more to the point, nor does anyone else.

I'm considering the possibility that other people posting here don't directly experience consciousness in the same way that I do. That would explain a lot. Perhaps it's just me and the thermostats.

 

[JoeEllison]

Yes, I've read many of my own posts. I've even thought about them


The basic "explain it away" assertion about consciousness seems to be that because it's undefinable, undetectable and inexplicable, it doesn't exist. I know this not to be the case, because I directly experience it. Unlike the postulated quantity of ran - I don't claim to experience ran, and more to the point, nor does anyone else.

I'm considering the possibility that other people posting here don't directly experience consciousness in the same way that I do. That would explain a lot. Perhaps it's just me and the thermostats.

I'm assuming that maybe you just don't read words the same way as other people, considering the incredible strawman you just presented. I don't think anyone has made this assertion:

The basic "explain it away" assertion about consciousness seems to be that because it's undefinable, undetectable and inexplicable, it doesn't exist.

Certainly, I've never made anything like that assertion, and I'm the one you're currently discussing this with.. Maybe you should read the thread one more time, with feeling?

Then you said this:

As far as we can tell, consciousness is entangled in the physical processes of actual human beings. However, there is no physical theory that goes in any way to begin to explain it. There's no experiment which has been able to quantify the phenomenon at all.

So, you explain consciousness as physical processes of human beings, and then turn around and reject your own explanation. Weird, man... just weird!

 

[JoeEllison]

I'm using the "ran theory" because I do think it provides a useful tool to help expose and demonstrate the assumptions in the HPC that in fact create the HPC i.e. shows that the HPC is the result of circular reasoning, just like good old Descartes' famous whimsy.

I proposed something similar in my first post to this thread, about a running engine, and how no one claims that there's some sort of undefinable "running" that is separate from the physical processes of an engine in use. So, by the same token, there's no need to talk about "consciousness" in any sense that doesn't relate to physical processes.

 

[Darat]

...snip... Unlike the postulated quantity of ran - I don't claim to experience ran, and more to the point, nor does anyone else.


...snip...

You seriously mean you've never ran?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Emotions can simply be variables which are affected by and affect other systems in the brain and the rest of the body.

In principle it seems quite straightforward to create artificial lifeforms which evolve "minds" of their own. However, the resulting behaviour would almost certainly be totally useless to humans because we would not have sufficient control of it.

Might be fun to watch them develop, though.

 

[westprog]

Then you said this: So, you explain consciousness as physical processes of human beings, and then turn around and reject your own explanation. Weird, man... just weird!

I'm saying that we have no idea what causes consciousness. That seems to be such an obvious thing to say that it's almost embarassing to keep repeating it.

It appears to be a physical phenomenon. However, to baldly assert that we know this with certainity, without having any idea what physical process creates it, is just handwaving.

For example, there's a school of thought that says that it's just a matter of algorithmic/mechanical complexity. Thus any mechanism has a degree of consciousness, and something as complex as we are will have the same amount, approximately speaking.

This just appears to be an assertion based on nothing more than the fact that human beings are complex, and have consciousness. Aside from that, it's just using the same name for two different things and claiming that they are the same. It's in no way a scientific theory, and it doesn't really explain anything.

Other theories that I've seen suffer from the same problem - they are based on nothing in particular apart from what the theorizer wants to be true.

It's a disturbing thing that we know so little about it, but just making things up doesn't help.