The Hard Problem of Gravity

[westprog]

So consciousness has something to do with reproduction? Or metabolism? Growth? Adaptation to environment? Some combination of these?

What's so difficult about "we don't know"?

 

[AkuManiMani]

What's so difficult about "we don't know"?

Oh-Em-Gee!! Hes invoking 'Magic'! Flame tha' witch!!

 

[westprog]

I don't understand how you can differentiate the two. The pattern of bits IS a memory.

No, it isn't. Any given pattern of bits could be entered into a computer ab initio. It is merely a state. And when a computer enters another state, it knows nothing about future or past states.

What is a memory other than a record of past events? A computer records past events, and references them later for other tasks.

No, it accesses data. It has no way of knowing whether the data is a record of past events. It's just bits.

I think that back when people had to toggle in the bootstrap code by hand they were less likely to make this kind of category mistake. I think part of the problem is calling it "computer memory". If it were called "computer state", a more accurate term, then the confusion would be less likely to arise.

Some space alien with a different type of brain than ours (not a biologist, so I have no creative example) could say something like "These creatures cannot be aware, all they have is firing neurons that react to stimuli, where do they store information?"

The aliens would of course be wrong - but they at least have the excuse of being aliens. We know better. We know that unlike computers, we do remember things. How it's done is the trick. So far we don't know - but we can be reasonably sure it doesn't work like computer memory.

This is just starting to sound like human chauvinism to me.

I don't know why there's this absolute terror at the thought that there might actually be something unique or unusual about human beings. So far, the evidence is that there is. It might turn out that there isn't, but why prejudge?

 

[westprog]

No, I'm not

Perhaps you are, technically - that being the strict definition of anthropomorphism - but that would be to nitpick.

 

[Third Eye Open]

What's so difficult about "we don't know"?

There is nothing wrong with 'we don't know'. He wasn't saying 'I don't know', he was asserting that only living things are conscious.

So I asked what he thought it was about life that was related to consciousness.

If the answer to that is 'I don't know' also, then maybe you could consider that maybe it's nothing to do with life specifically.

 

[Third Eye Open]

I don't know why there's this absolute terror at the thought that there might actually be something unique or unusual about human beings. So far, the evidence is that there is. It might turn out that there isn't, but why prejudge?

Terror? I think it would be a bit comforting to know for sure that objects can not be aware, but I can think of no reason why they should not be, if complex enough.

I suppose I just don't know enough about computers to understand what you are saying about memory. But if an object can store information about the past and use it to calculate what may happen in the future, then I would consider it aware.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Because organisms actively reduce their internal entropy which, to my knowledge, is something no other naturally occurring object does.

I'm not sure that this is true. It may be true that no other object does so consistently.

Reversing entropy needs energy of course - and there's nothing thermodynamically impossible so long as the entropy books balance.

This is something that's been covered in a lot of evolution discussions. I'm sure that one of those could be plugged in to explain it better.

Well, from what I've read, organisms are said to actively increase their own internal 'negative entropy' at the price of increasing the overall entropy of their external environment. As near's I can tell, this whole negentropy/entropy dichotomy deals with the relative amounts of known storable information in a system. Beyond that, the details become a bit too technical for my current level of expertise.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Some space alien with a different type of brain than ours (not a biologist, so I have no creative example) could say something like "These creatures cannot be aware, all they have is firing neurons that react to stimuli, where do they store information?"

The aliens would of course be wrong - but they at least have the excuse of being aliens. We know better. We know that unlike computers, we do remember things. How it's done is the trick. So far we don't know - but we can be reasonably sure it doesn't work like computer memory.

Exactly. Until we do understand hows and whys of things like memories and other experiences, we'll be unable to determine what kind of structure or process necessarily gives rise to such things.

Its pretty obvious that a compute cannot be said to 'know' anything any more than one can claim that a book 'knows' the information it contains. The is obviously a fundamental difference between how inanimate objects relate to information and how living entities, like brains, relate to information.

I don't know why there's this absolute terror at the thought that there might actually be something unique or unusual about human beings. So far, the evidence is that there is. It might turn out that there isn't, but why prejudge?

I don't find the idea frightening at all. Infact, the prospect of a deeper mystery just makes the whole subject all the more fascinating to me. I really can't relate with the attitude some people on this forum appear to have toward mystery and uncertainty. I find their antipathy toward such things baffling and upsetting. This stuff should excite and intrigue people, not scare them off

 

[Mercutio]

My badnik.

[derail, just a bit]

Aku, I am thoroughly impressed. The minute I posted, I wondered if I had gone overboard; I had other things to do here in the real world, and I kept thinking that I had perhaps been just too snarky in my comment. Whether I had been or not, your reply is just perfect--an acknowledgment of a different point of view and a request for clarification, and no return of snark for snark. It was a much better reply than my post deserved, IMO, and my hat is off to you.

That said, just a couple of comments to get you started, and I offer to answer anything more if you want to ask, here or elsewhere. First, two great resources--one free, and one worth paying for. The Athabasca University Behaviorism Tutorial is a great place to start; it focuses mostly on the differences between radical behaviorism and methodological behaviorism (in my experience--supported by multiple surveys--most people who are taught about behaviorism by non-behaviorists tend to conflate the two. It is not their fault, of course, but it is glosses over half a century of research and theory; Radical Behaviorism is as different from methodological behaviorism as it is from Cognitive Psychology!). The other source? Baum's "Understanding Behaviorism", which a few forumites have read and thanked me for. Baum was my prof a lot of years ago; the book is a bit like being in seminar with him.

Ok, one more: the journal, Behavior and Philosophy. Seriously, though, not before at least the tutorial. Although if you are well-versed in philosophy, you may have no problem.

 

[rocketdodger]

This is a less-than-trivial question; one that can't be answered in such a cursory manner

You may be right.

But since you aren't really contributing to this discussion other than to assert everyone is wrong I guess such cursory answers are all we have to go on.

Only if its both instructed to do so and has the capacity (cache, RAM, HDD) to do so

Yes. Does this subtract from Third Eye Open's argument?

Because if it does, you might want to be a little more specific, given that the rest of us are so obviously your mental inferiors -- we will probably miss the subtle nuances of the devastating counter-arguments you compress into single sarcastic condescending sentences without further explanation.

 

[AkuManiMani]

[derail, just a bit]

Aku, I am thoroughly impressed. The minute I posted, I wondered if I had gone overboard; I had other things to do here in the real world, and I kept thinking that I had perhaps been just too snarky in my comment. Whether I had been or not, your reply is just perfect--an acknowledgment of a different point of view and a request for clarification, and no return of snark for snark. It was a much better reply than my post deserved, IMO, and my hat is off to you.

That said, just a couple of comments to get you started, and I offer to answer anything more if you want to ask, here or elsewhere. First, two great resources--one free, and one worth paying for. The Athabasca University Behaviorism Tutorial is a great place to start; it focuses mostly on the differences between radical behaviorism and methodological behaviorism (in my experience--supported by multiple surveys--most people who are taught about behaviorism by non-behaviorists tend to conflate the two. It is not their fault, of course, but it is glosses over half a century of research and theory; Radical Behaviorism is as different from methodological behaviorism as it is from Cognitive Psychology!). The other source? Baum's "Understanding Behaviorism", which a few forumites have read and thanked me for. Baum was my prof a lot of years ago; the book is a bit like being in seminar with him.

Ok, one more: the journal, Behavior and Philosophy. Seriously, though, not before at least the tutorial. Although if you are well-versed in philosophy, you may have no problem.

Thank you very much for all the material you've provided. Don't worry tho, if I come across unfamiliar terminology it just so happens that I have the ultimate reference source at my fingertips. Gotta luv the intrawebz

 

[Mercutio]

Dammit, I meant to address one more thing. You (Aku) had bolded something (in the wiki article) about behaviorism's focus on whole organisms without reliance on brain stuff or fictional (mental) stuff. Just to clarify... that defines our subject area. Do biologists deny chemistry? No, but it is not their subject. We do not deny neurology; there are problems better addressed at the level of the whole organism. (consciousness may be addressed at both levels; on this forum, people routinely reject the whole organism level and focus on the brain only. Doing so is not helpful, IMHO.) We do deny explanatory fictions, but then so should any skeptic who understands circular reasoning.

 

[six7s]

There is nothing wrong with 'we don't know'

Indeed!

He wasn't saying 'I don't know', he was asserting that only living things are conscious.

No, I wasn't

For an idea of what, if anything, I was asserting, try reading what I wrote

• I might assert something along the lines of

If the answer to that is 'I don't know' also, then maybe you could consider that maybe it's nothing to do with life specifically.

Maybe you could consider that maybe I considered as much bloody ages ago

 

[six7s]

...the subtle nuances of the devastating counter-arguments you compress into single sarcastic condescending sentences without further explanation.

Ever stopped to think that maybe you could be perceiving complexity where there is none?

Try it

It won't hurt

 

[rocketdodger]

No, it isn't. Any given pattern of bits could be entered into a computer ab initio. It is merely a state. And when a computer enters another state, it knows nothing about future or past states.

And when people have certain parts of their brains destroyed or removed, they know nothing about future or past states either.

Computers don't have memory unless the data is stored and interpreted as memory.
People don't have memory unless the data is stored and interpreted as memory.

What is your point?

No, it accesses data. It has no way of knowing whether the data is a record of past events. It's just bits.

Ahh, I see.

So you are saying we could, for instance, hook up another human's brain to the sensory neurons of your foot and you would be able to correctly access that individual's memories? Because, after all, a human brain just "knows" what every neural impulse means, regardless of where they come from?

I think that back when people had to toggle in the bootstrap code by hand they were less likely to make this kind of category mistake. I think part of the problem is calling it "computer memory". If it were called "computer state", a more accurate term, then the confusion would be less likely to arise.

I think part of the problem is calling it "thoughts." If it were called "brain state," a more accurate term, then the confusion would be less likely.

The aliens would of course be wrong - but they at least have the excuse of being aliens. We know better. We know that unlike computers, we do remember things. How it's done is the trick. So far we don't know - but we can be reasonably sure it doesn't work like computer memory.

We can also be reasonably sure that this is irrelevant. At least, those of us sufficiently versed in mathematics and computer science.

I don't know why there's this absolute terror at the thought that there might actually be something unique or unusual about human beings. So far, the evidence is that there is. It might turn out that there isn't, but why prejudge?

It isn't terror, it is extreme distaste.

Distaste, because if we cannot engineer consciousness -- even by accident -- there will never be a singularity and our species will live out the rest of its days stagnating as hairless monkeys.

I don't think you really understand the implications. This isn't just about "not creating robot friends," this is about not being able to improve human life.

To supplement our frail biological memory with computer assistance, we need to be able to engineer consciousness. To interface directly with our brain at any useful level, we need to be able to engineer consciousness. To save injured patients by replacing some of their natural brain functions with designed ones, we need to be able to engineer consciousness. The list goes on and on.

Frankly, I don't really care about A.I. So why have I devoted my life to it? Because until I learn how human consciousness can exist in a machine, I won't be willing to let parts of my mind become a machine. And unless I do that I won't be around to see quite a few things I want to see.

 

[six7s]

It isn't terror, it is extreme distaste.

Distaste, because if we cannot engineer consciousness -- even by accident -- there will never be a singularity and our species will live out the rest of its days stagnating as hairless monkeys.

Get over it, already

There is no significant difference between us humans and gazillions of other species; we are plentiful now, one day we will be extinct

You might want/need to feel like you and your kin are stagnating

Some of us think that life, as we know it, rocks

I don't think you really understand the implications.

Seems the implications do, indeed, fill you with terror

 

[six7s]

To interface directly with our brain at any useful level, we need to be able to engineer consciousness.

Or crayons

 

[rocketdodger]

Ever stopped to think that maybe you could be perceiving complexity where there is none?

Try it

It won't hurt

Well, it is a relief to know that I am not missing anything by giving your posts a single glance and then moving on to something useful (like the posts of people who are actually interested in a discussion).

Thanks for clearing that up!

 

[six7s]

Well, it is a relief to know that I am not missing anything by giving your posts a single glance and then moving on to something useful (like the posts of people who are actually interested in a discussion).

Thanks for clearing that up!

Confirmation bias, much?

 

[rocketdodger]

Some of us think that life, as we know it, rocks

Some of us think that life, as we know it, rocks so much that it would be nice if it lasted longer.

Funny how you categorize yourself with the former and not the latter.