The Hard Problem of Gravity

yy2bggggs said:
Well, I still see useful distinctions between the "switch" as defined earlier, information storage, and information conversion. Whatever significance other people tie to these distinctions is another issue.
Click to expand...

Since it's been demonstrated that rocks switch, store information and convert information, there needs to be a precise definition of information processing that rules 'em out.
 
Belz... said:
Really ? No. You guys said that rocks expand with heat. Fine. If that's information processing to you, then everything processes information and the term is useless.

The way I see it, "information processing" means that information enters the system and is transformed into some other information. Thermostats do that because they take heat and transform it into "Heater ON". Rocks just expand, but they do squat with the data they get.
Click to expand...

I am going to attempt to squash the "information processing" beef.

This "information processing" argument that I find myself in, is semantic at best.

Some sources, like Wikipedia, say things like:

Wikipedia said:
Information processing is the change (processing) of information in any manner detectable by an observer. As such, it is a process which describes everything which happens (changes) in the universe, from the falling of a rock (a change in position) to the printing of a text file from a digital computer system.
Click to expand...

Which is in line with what I originally said, however, other sources like Britannica Online, have a more specific definition:

Britannica said:
Acquisition, recording, organization, retrieval, display, and dissemination of information.

Today the term usually refers to computer-based operations. Information processing consists of locating and capturing information, using software to manipulate it into a desired form, and outputting the data.
Click to expand...

So yeah, we could say that rocks process information, or not. It can be true, or false, depending on the context and usage of the term "information processing". The problem here, is that some people are attempting to conflate the wiki definition(see quote1) of information processing, with what Pixy calls "self-referential information processing". They then appeal to how absurd it is that "according to person A, even rocks are conscious!".

We also have a lot of very loose definitions flying about(switches). People on both sides stretching and contracting the scope of these terms to suit their needs.

This entire debate from page 1 has been 70%(made up figure) semantics.

:(:(:(
 
PixyMisa said:
Neurochemicals are the mechanism of the switches in the brain. Drugs that modify the brain behaviour do so by modifying the switching characteristics of the neurons. That's still a digital computer. It's not a binary computer, but it's digital.
Click to expand...

Alright, one more thing. The brain isn't merely a pulse-coded digital switch network--it is an evolving pulse-coded digital switch network; that is, its structure itself changes in terms of connections. Assuming that the neurochemical component plays a role in determining how these connections are established, which I think is pretty fair, this would result in a sort of distributed effect on the characteristics of the digital network with computational implications--as such, I believe it may count as "practically analog".

Is the assumption fair? (Or am I just wrong?) And if so, does this have any impact? Would you rule out the significance of such effects in the role of consciousness, for example? (Note that I'm not actually arguing for it--none of my strange positions rely on analog computation--I'm just trying to explore implications).
 
Last edited:
yy2bggggs said:
Alright, one more thing. The brain isn't merely a pulse-coded digital switch network--it is an evolving pulse-coded digital switch network; that is, its structure itself changes in terms of connections.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

Assuming that the neurochemical component plays a role in determining how these connections are established, which I think is pretty fair, this would result in a sort of distributed effect on the characteristics of the digital network with computational implications--as such, I believe it may count as "practically analog".
Click to expand...
In the sense of an analog computer? No, not at all.

Remember that simple example of an analog computer - the slide rule? The brain is nothing like that.

No, the brain is a digital computer. With some interesting wrinkles, but still digital.

Is the assumption fair? (Or am I just wrong?)
Click to expand...
I think maybe you're working on the wrong idea of what an analog computer is. An analog computer doesn't handle analog signals. An analog computer is some physical thing that is analagous to the problem you wish to solve.

And if so, does this have any impact? Would you rule out the significance of such effects in the role of consciousness, for example? (Note that I'm not actually arguing for it--none of my strange positions rely on analog computation--I'm just trying to explore implications).
Click to expand...
I certainly wouldn't rule out the impact of psychoactive chemicals on consciousness. They're one of the most useful pieces of evidence in understanding how the brain works. (And people being people, our longest-running experiement into brain function.)
 
westprog said:
And when you drop a rock off a cliff its behaviour changes drastically when it hits the bottom.
Click to expand...

No, it absolutely does not. The rock doesn't change at all. What changes is the relative velocity, momentum, etc. of the rock. That is not a behavioral change.

Otherwise, you could pick up an object and claim it's behavior changed by virtue of it simply being in a different location.

Now if the rock shattered, or exploded, or its internal state otherwise changed, then you would be correct. And in such a case I would say the rock cares very much about hitting the bottom.

westprog said:
It would help when you make these statements if you are actually attempting precise definitions. Is a drastic change in behaviour an indication that some inanimate object "cares"?
Click to expand...

Yes.



westprog said:
I'm trying to get a physical definition. You are using an engineering definition. You can't hop from one realm to another using whatever definitions you have to hand.
Click to expand...

I gave you a precise description of what switch means using first order logic and I have been using that definition all along.

westprog said:
And you couldn't replace a rock with a thermostat either. If you can give a scientific definition of a switch that excludes the rock - or components within the rock - and includes thermostats, I'd be interested to see it.

Here's what I consider a rough and ready definition-

SWITCH - a physical object that allows or prevents an event from taking place according to its physical state.

What's yours?
Click to expand...

I already told you. I am not surprised that you missed it, though.

It is pretty close to what you came up with, incidentally. And what you came up with isn't satisfied by a rock either.

In particular, it is not clear how the physical state of a rock might change to allow or prevent an external event from taking place.

You can move a rock around, but that isn't changing its state at all. You can change the state of a rock, but that doesn't seem to allow or prevent an external event -- it causes external events, but it doesn't seem to switch them.

Of course, if you actually have an example, I am all ears.
 
westprog said:
You must know that that's not true. Perhaps you would like to rephrase it.

[qimg]http://www.cnsm.csulb.edu/departments/geology/people/bperry/Geol303photos/global%20warming/MSH80_eruption_mount_st_helens_05-18-80_med.jpg[/qimg] - a rock responding to heat by doing something.
Click to expand...

What, exactly, are the rocks in that image doing as a response to the heat?

I see a volcano doing something, but the rocks seem to be just ... rocks.
 
yy2bggggs said:
By that definition, what about the fact that rocks convert light into heat? Or would things such as the conversion of time into ratios of potassium to argon count?
Click to expand...

I expected that from somebody.

I honestly don't know how to put it, however, in a way that clearly distinguishes those from what I meant to express. Perhaps you'll have a better definition than I.
 
westprog said:
Then replicate it. I'm not stopping you.
Click to expand...

Westprog, at this point you're just being abrasive. I'm only telling you that things may not necessarily need happen in the order you described.

If you want to produce a physical definition of information processing that isn't dependent on the use human beings make of the information, then the onus is on you. Information processing is a useful term in computing. Whether it means anything in the real world is another matter.
Click to expand...

If you want to play it that way, ALL words are dependent on the use human beings make of it.

I'm still not seeing a precise definition.

I would say that the Grand Canyon is a fairly clear chunk of information. A great big hole in the ground caused by liquid being channelled by rocks.
Click to expand...

I said information PROCESSING. You're not reading at all.
 
Belz... said:
We're trying to define the terms that make up the discussion. What do you propose as an alternative ?
Click to expand...

Nothing, it is fine to do this. I agree with you guys(you and RD and Pixy), on almost everything that you have said. I think that Westprog is the one stretching the definition of "switch" to make it fit the rock, in order to commit the conflation fallacy that I talked about in my earlier post.

At the same time, you have to acknowledge that by itself, the word switch is a noun, and a verb, and you could technically say that a rock "switches" states, but it does not uses "switches" to "switch", and it by itself is not a "switch", although it can "switch" from being hot, to being cold.

There is room for honest confusion in some of these cases.
 
Belz... said:
Aku, nobody is decreeing anything.
Click to expand...

Its been stated in this thread that objects like rocks do not process information. This is flat out inaccurate.

Belz... said:
Your behaviour is getting more and more obnoxious. It would help if you actually tried to understand what other people are saying and not hand-wave it by assuming that nobody knows squat.
Click to expand...

Belz, I understand the position being put forward by RD, Pixy et al. implicitly. In fact, I used to hold the same position myself when I was younger. The fact of the matter is that the core of their position is based off of ad hoc assertion and Pixy, in particular, has made completely inaccurate statements in regard to the inherent computational capacities of all mater.

I'm pretty sure that most participants in this discussion are extremely knowledgeable in the relevant subject areas which is why I'm flabbergasted that they are making such inaccurate statements. Quite frankly, they should know better.

Belz... said:
No, they don't. Thermostats add another layer of complexity as they respond to heat by actually doing something. Rocks don't.
Click to expand...

My point was that they physically respond to heat and that they share this capacity with the materials that make up thermostats. Such physical reactions -- every physically reaction-- are forms of information processing. Its what allows us to even make devices like thermostats in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
Amaze me. Where's that definition ?
Click to expand...

I'm seriously amazed that you can manage to over look posts of this length.


Belz... said:
Of course! It's such an easy answer. Why didn't I think of that ?!

No, wait! Why don't you instead tell me what you think you mean by "process information" and then I can hopefully amend my opinion on the matter to match yours.
Click to expand...

Wow, so you wanna play that game with even such well established terms like information processing...? Hows about you use the internet at your fingertips and read up on the topic yourself. Once you've done that you'll probably be able to add something a bit more substantive to this discussion other than cheer leading and ad nauseum demands for endless definitions. I'd very much prefer not to be rude but you're really pushing it Belz... -_-
 
Last edited:
Gate2501 said:
I am going to attempt to squash the "information processing" beef.

This "information processing" argument that I find myself in, is semantic at best.
Click to expand...

Gate, since you want to get a more formal definition of what is meant by 'information' and 'information processing' I'm going to provide some links to academic articles discussing the topic. That way, there's no confusion as to what the actual scientific definition of the term is.

http://ee.stanford.edu/~gray/it.pdf

http://astarte.csustan.edu/~tom/SFI-CSSS/2005/info-lec.pdf

http://quantum.phys.cmu.edu/QCQI/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/#3

http://quantum.cs.berkeley.edu/

I could provide endless more links but the above should be more than exhaustive.

Gate2501 said:
So yeah, we could say that rocks process information, or not. It can be true, or false, depending on the context and usage of the term "information processing". The problem here, is that some people are attempting to conflate the wiki definition(see quote1) of information processing, with what Pixy calls "self-referential information processing". They then appeal to how absurd it is that "according to person A, even rocks are conscious!".

We also have a lot of very loose definitions flying about(switches). People on both sides stretching and contracting the scope of these terms to suit their needs.

This entire debate from page 1 has been 70%(made up figure) semantics.

:(:(:(
Click to expand...

The definition being employed by the physical sciences is the one westprog and I are referring to. Its actual meaning is not restricted to the processes of man-made systems but applies to all physical phenomena. Ask any physicist and they will tell you that atoms actually do process information in the formal sense. Everything that exists is inherently informational -- all phenomena and entities register information and perform logical ops. Physicist have even roughly calculated the informational content of the visible universe. Information and computation are not just things confined to man-made machines; its the basis for all physics.
 
Last edited:
Isn't a prereq of information processing to model something (anything that it stands for)? For instance, a sequence of bytes in RAM are a representative, say, of a window's pixel buffer. There is a resulting behavior (the window being displayed), and is assimilable (as in another system can make it's own "guess" of the model on it's own). For the brain's side, neurons firing off represent something like an image. There is resulting behavior (if the image is an incoming predator, the behavior is to stop whatever is being done and take appropriate action, like running). Also, it too is assimilable. Ex: You output a representation of an image, and another brain can internalize it in a similar manner. You don't see this in, shall we say, rocks. For one, there is little diversity in I/O. Two, there is no similar internalization of "perceived" input. As in we don't observe ice-9 behavior in rocks, or water for that matter (and I should say we are grateful that it isn't otherwise). That, and there's no behavior change that results as a "model" of input.
 
Okay. Just for the fun of it, I've decided to post 'character profiles' of some of the most frequent posters on this thread. Of course these are all just my personal opinions. If you weren't listed don't take it personally, the list isn't meant to be comprehensive or anything >_>

Character Profiles:

Westprog: Presents the obvious truth even when its unpopular. Has a talent for weighting in on issues with a level head and good sense.

AkuManiMani: Tact of a 5 year-old and easily frustrated with the limitations of others -- especially elders. Correct on general principles but needs to learn patience.

Rocketdodger: Talented AI programmer with a lot of knowledge of his field. Has much to offer the world by way of his intelligence and skills. Unfortunately, has a tendency to be blinded by his own pride and is reluctant to venture beyond conceptual comfort zones.

PixyMisa: Has a broad fund of knowledge but little to no capacity for creative insight. His narrow conceptual confines are defined by favored ideological talking heads and is psychologically incapable of venturing beyond them.

Mercucio: A learned gentleman highly competent within his field of practice. Generally correct on most of the basics and has much to teach but lacks vision and scope.

Belz...: Has an admirable no-nonsense attitude. Also has an unfortunate tendency to take things at face value without depth of consideration. Seeks to root out nonsense wherever he perceives such but has a hard time distinguishing between whats 'woo' and what just sounds weird to him.

Gate2501: Honest guy who just wants to know what all the fuss is about. After all, this consciousness stuff is pretty straightforward, right?
 
Last edited:
"lacks vision and scope"?

I'm afraid I'm gonna have to call that an argument from ignorance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom