The Hard Problem of Gravity

[Darat]

...snip... yet all of us knowing what is meant.

...snip...

Speak for yourself, I have absolutely no idea what you mean by all these amorphous and mist-like words you keep using!

 

[cyborg]

Because unconscious reflexive computation takes place without me being conscious of it.

Yes, but how do *YOU* know that it *FEELS* different since you can't access that qualitative experience by your own definitions?

 

[AkuManiMani]

I've read a bit of the thread and I'm not quite sure where you cite any formal definition of consciousness. I've seen reference to consciousness as awareness, as being awake, as consisting in awareness of self-referential activity, as experience, etc.

Okay, Let me sum up my position:

Consciousness is still a 'hard problem' because there are no sufficient formal definitions of it. All the definitions being put forward as such by the strong AI proponents here are not sufficient because there are innumerable examples of their operational criteria being met that do not actually produce conscious experience.

I'm not saying that the problem is unsolvable, or that no progress can be made. I'm saying that quite a few individuals participating here are clinging to the dogmatic illusion that the problem is already 'solved' when, in reality, they've completely side-stepped it. They're Lotos eaters who are convinced that they've already arrived at their destination. In reality they're living inna dream, stranded on an island, still far from their destination. Like Columbus, they seemed dead set on going to their graves convinced they've found the westward route to the East Indies when what they've really done is set their flags on a completely different continent.

I'm not trying to diminish the achievements of the field of AI, or trying to discourage pursuit in it. My point is that their achievements, while great, are not what they think they are. There is still much more to be done in unraveling the mystery of consciousness and its not going to be accomplished if the best and brightest are content to sit on their laurels convincing themselves that they've already solved it.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Yes, but how do *YOU* know that it *FEELS* different since you can't access that qualitative experience by your own definitions?

So basically, you wanna know how the absence of something is different from the thing thats absent???

Oh, gawd... /facepalm

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Okay, Let me sum up my position:

Consciousness is still a 'hard problem' because there are no sufficient formal definitions of it. All the definitions being put forward as such by the strong AI proponents here are not sufficient because there are innumerable examples of their operational criteria being met that do not actually produce conscious experience.

I'm not saying that the problem is unsolvable, or that no progress can be made. I'm saying that quite a few individuals participating here are clinging to the dogmatic illusion that the problem is already 'solved' when, in reality, they've completely side-stepped it. They're Lotos eaters who are convinced that they've already arrived at their destination. In reality they're living inna dream, stranded on an island, still far from their destination. Like Columbus, they seemed dead set on going to their graves convinced they've found the westward route to the East Indies when what they've really done is set their flags on a completely different continent.

I'm not trying to diminish the achievements of the field of AI, or trying to discourage pursuit in it. My point is that their achievements, while great, are not what they think they are. There is still much more to be done in unraveling the mystery of consciousness and its not going to be accomplished if the best and brightest are content to sit on their laurels convincing themselves that they've already solved it.

OK, but the formal definition is not the point of origin, but the end result. That we have no formal definition of consciousness that will satisfy all is true, and I think it is evidence that we do not have all the answers -- and I think most here, including those with whom you are debating would probably agree.

We did not have a formal definition of water as H2O until we had dissected and reduced all its "components". The same is true of consciousness.

What we can and should be doing is defining all the bits that we see make it up, as I mentioned above in an earlier post, and explaining them. The formal definition of consciousness will follow that exercise.

If anyone is claiming to know absolutely what consciousness *is* in a formal sense, then they are in some error. I think we know it in broad outline fairly well, though. And we do have some explanations for bits that were supposed to be unexplainable and utterly mysterious.

I seriously doubt that it is a hard problem at all. It's just a complex one. The so-called "hard problem" is just an issue of explaining what "feeling" or "emotion" or "the passions" is as they are linked to experiences of the world. We know very little about this issue because no one has concentrated on it to any great degree until recently.

 

[cyborg]

So basically, you wanna know how the absence of something is different from the thing thats absent???

Oh, gawd... /facepalm

No, I want to know how you are aware that it is qualitatively different to process unconsciously as opposed to consciously.

 

[Belz...]

I find the inability to see the problem almost leads me to think that the people who deny it really aren't conscious in the way as the people who do. But then I reflect on the human capacity for self-deceipt.

You are dangerously close to arguing for the soul, here. Nobody, I think, is arguing that humans aren't conscious. But the definition of "consciousness" seems fuzzy. "Conscious experience", "qualia" or "subjectivity" are all synonyms, anyway. They're not a definition. So what IS consciousness ?

Really, can ANYBODY define consciousness in non-tautological terms, and in ways that differ from, say, Pixy's definition ? Or Mercutio's definition ? How is consciousness NOT infered only from behaviour, anyway ?

So what remains is our perception of our own state of consciousness (yeah, that's kinda tautological too). I don't know about you, but sometimes my "mind" is not exactly focused, and in those times I wouldn't be able to tell you where "I" begin or end, or how I perceive/feel my own thoughts. That doesn't sound like something that's anything else than the process of self-reference, to me. And if it's just self-reference, then there's no reason to think it's "special" or beyond even today's machines.

At least dualists are straightforward about their beliefs in these matters. The others, however, are trying to have their cake and eat it, too: they deny the existence of the soul, but they'll be damned if one claims that human consciousness is akin to that of a thermostat.

I have seen no sensible explanation of why I'm conscious.

You mean "how", right ?

 

[Belz...]

I know there is a problem. You seem to not want there to be one.

Yes, you know just as the kid knows there's a monster under his bed.

But by your own posts one can see that you cannot define what that problem is, so maybe we first need to tell if there IS a problem to start with. You CLAIM there is one, but so far all I see is air.

I'm guessing that we'll find that one is a well-defined, well-understood physical concept, and the other is a bit of CS waffle that a typical physicist wouldn't give a moment's attention. What do you think?

I think the "easily" tested statement should be tested. So far all you've done is guess the outcome.

 

[Belz...]

Because unconscious reflexive computation takes place without me being conscious of it.

Mostly, you mean. Sometimes you're conscious of it. Any idea why ?

Sorry if I haven't addressed your particular question directly. It just that I've spent dozens of pages answering that very same question as thoroughly and exhaustively as language allows and all I getting are claims that I haven't explained what I mean by conscious experience. Quite frankly, I'm absolutely tired of repeating, paraphrasing, and clarifying my myself to the nth degree so, if you want the answer to that question, read the rest of the thread.

I've been reading the thread since the first post and I'm yet to see a definition of consciousness that isn't circular.

 

[westprog]

Yes, you know just as the kid knows there's a monster under his bed.

No, because of the mere fact of knowing anything. Does that physics book explain "knowing"? No, it has nothing to say about it. It's nothing to do with physics at the moment. And yet we do know things. And guess what, even the people who don't regard "knowing" as a problem still use the word, and still can't properly define it.

But by your own posts one can see that you cannot define what that problem is, so maybe we first need to tell if there IS a problem to start with. You CLAIM there is one, but so far all I see is air.



I think the "easily" tested statement should be tested. So far all you've done is guess the outcome.

Feel free to choose your own physics text.

 

[westprog]

You are dangerously close to arguing for the soul, here. Nobody, I think, is arguing that humans aren't conscious. But the definition of "consciousness" seems fuzzy.

I don't know of any definition of consciousness that actually defines consciousness, never mind explains it.

"Conscious experience", "qualia" or "subjectivity" are all synonyms, anyway. They're not a definition. So what IS consciousness ?

Really, can ANYBODY define consciousness in non-tautological terms, and in ways that differ from, say, Pixy's definition ? Or Mercutio's definition ? How is consciousness NOT infered only from behaviour, anyway ?

So what remains is our perception of our own state of consciousness (yeah, that's kinda tautological too). I don't know about you, but sometimes my "mind" is not exactly focused, and in those times I wouldn't be able to tell you where "I" begin or end, or how I perceive/feel my own thoughts. That doesn't sound like something that's anything else than the process of self-reference, to me. And if it's just self-reference, then there's no reason to think it's "special" or beyond even today's machines.

As soon as you said "I" you took things out of the realm of machines.

The machine doesn't need an I. Indeed, "I" is something we invented to explain consciousness. If there's no consciousness, then there's no need to identify one atom as "Me" and another atom as "part of world".

At least dualists are straightforward about their beliefs in these matters. The others, however, are trying to have their cake and eat it, too: they deny the existence of the soul, but they'll be damned if one claims that human consciousness is akin to that of a thermostat.

The only reason to assume that human beings possess consciousness is that they assert they have consciousness. The only reason to assume that animals have consciousness is because they are similar to human beings.

The grounds for assuming that a thermostat has consciousness are so tenuous as to be hardly reasons at all.

You mean "how", right ?

Why, how, where and even who.

 

[westprog]

Speak for yourself, I have absolutely no idea what you mean by all these amorphous and mist-like words you keep using!

If you don't know then I doubt if I or anyone else will be able to make you know.

Here's a way to see if you know what is meant. Try to summarise your last week - people met, books read, interactions with partner, music listened to, meals eaten, pain and happiness.

Then summarise the same week in purely behavioural terms.

The difference between the two accounts is what we are discussing. If you think the two accounts are essentially equivalent, and that no useful information is lost from one to the other, then you won't think there's a hard problem of consciousness.

IMO the subjective account is fundamentally central to being human, and has yet to be explained in any meaningful way.

 

[westprog]

Westprog ?

It's only data when a human looks at it. Until then, it's electricity - or ink, or scratches on clay.

 

[westprog]

I've been reading the thread since the first post and I'm yet to see a definition of consciousness that isn't circular.

Good, that's actually helpful. Now we have to figure out why the definitions of consciousness are circular, and how we can break the circle and define consciousness in a way that is actually useful and refers to something else.

 

[rocketdodger]

So basically, you wanna know how the absence of something is different from the thing thats absent???

Oh, gawd... /facepalm

If you weren't entirely reliant upon knee-jerk reactions, you might learn something.

In this case, cyborgs question is the single most important question that can be asked when it comes to understanding how simple information processing can give rise to your own consciousness.

Why are you conscious of your toe at certain times and unconscious of it at others?

Just try to answer the question.

 

[rocketdodger]

The machine doesn't need an I. Indeed, "I" is something we invented to explain consciousness. If there's no consciousness, then there's no need to identify one atom as "Me" and another atom as "part of world".

Huh?

You don't see why an entity would need to differentiate itself from the rest of the world?

You must have meant something else because that is an utterly stupid thing to say. Of course, Nick227 has said it as well...

 

[Belz...]

No, because of the mere fact of knowing anything. Does that physics book explain "knowing"? No, it has nothing to say about it. It's nothing to do with physics at the moment. And yet we do know things. And guess what, even the people who don't regard "knowing" as a problem still use the word, and still can't properly define it.

Feel free to choose your own physics text.

This is getting ridiculous. What you are now claiming is that if your physics book does not mention "knowing" or human consciousness then it is outside the scope of physics ?

Please. You guys are unable to define what consciousness is. We've provided a clear definition that makes observation and replication possible. You say it isn't enough, but you can't define what's missing, or even show that anything is.

"Knowing" anything doesn't cut it. Computers "know" things as well, but by your own definition they are not conscious.

 

[Nick227]

No, I want to know how you are aware that it is qualitatively different to process unconsciously as opposed to consciously.

Because awareness is qualitatively different from unawareness. I can see this screen. Brain science tells me that myriad other (visual)-processing functions are concurrently taking place without my awareness of them. Your question to me is like asking how I know light is different from dark.

If we look at GWT...if Strong AI is correct, then it must be that each parallel networked module is itself conscious, even though "I" am only aware of that which is being broadcast between modules.

Nick

 

[Belz...]

As soon as you said "I" you took things out of the realm of machines.

This is getting even more ridiculous. "I" is just a term. It doesn't represent some sort of metaphysical observer. A computer could say "I" and that would work because in the English language it's a word that serves to indicate the subject of the sentence. In fact, I've been spoken to by machines that use the word "I".

Indeed, "I" is something we invented to explain consciousness.

No, it's a word we made up to make communication easier.

If there's no consciousness, then there's no need to identify one atom as "Me" and another atom as "part of world".

Of course there is, just as there is need to identify one car as "bob's" and another one as "Jerry's". Being able to distinguish one thing from another is extremely useful, and "I", as the writer of this post, refers to "Belz...". I could just as easily say "Belz..." and speak of myself in the third person and that wouldn't change a thing. It's just a convention, and you're trying to put more meaning in words than they're worth.

The only reason to assume that human beings possess consciousness is that they assert they have consciousness. The only reason to assume that animals have consciousness is because they are similar to human beings.

The grounds for assuming that a thermostat has consciousness are so tenuous as to be hardly reasons at all.

You've just caught yourself, methinks. If the only reason to assume that human beings possess consciousness is that they assert to have it then, by definition, a computer that also asserts it (it uses "I", for instance) can be assumed to have it, as well.

Why, how, where and even who.

Irrelevant. How matters but "why" presupposes an intelligence behind it.

 

[Belz...]

It's only data when a human looks at it. Until then, it's electricity - or ink, or scratches on clay.

...or neural impulses.

Good, that's actually helpful. Now we have to figure out why the definitions of consciousness are circular,

We already know why. It's because people are referring to something that isn't there, and need to make it fundamental in order to support the rest of the argument, which results in circularity. Remove the need for the thing that isn't and you're left with no problem, "hard" or otherwise.