The Hard Problem of Gravity

[AkuManiMani]

"lacks vision and scope"?

I'm afraid I'm gonna have to call that an argument from ignorance.

Hey, I gave you more positives than I did myself -- gemme a break! lol

 

[Mercutio]

Re: the "behavior" of rocks... and whether they care or not, and whether they are switches or not...

Thank you all for illustrating my point about level of analysis. "Consciousness" is a problem of behavior (with a large concentration of that subset of behavior known as "language"). We can argue about whether a rock cares, or switches, or whatever, when it hits the ground, but I would wager that none of us were ever taught that the behavior of rocks (assuming that someone wants to call it behavior--I don't, but apparently at least one person does) was a member of that fuzzy set called conscious behavior. For most of us, lots of human behavior (but not all), lots of animal behavior (but not all), some car or computer behavior (very little), the behavior of some toys, of some weather phenomena (the tornado took aim at...), and probably more I am not thinking of, are what we learned consciousness applied to. For some people, it meaningfully applies to some very very simple behaviors (btw, same argument applies to "behavior"--some people can meaningfully use that word to apply to rocks, or thermostats, or whatever, and others do not); the behaviors may vary depending on the context of the discussion.

This is not a cop-out; this is a very messy reality. You want to find a common aspect behind all uses of "consciousness"? You won't find it in mechanism. You'll find it in use. The common factor behind X consciousness, Y consciousness, and Z consciousness is simply that we have learned to use that word in association with those behaviors. It's not magic.

Sure, studying the mechanisms behind various aspects of consciousness is very cool, but do not expect that mechanism to be what is behind other forms of consciousness. Pixy's definitions work just fine for me... in a great many, but not all, contexts. My guess is that he feels much the same about mine. It should not surprise anyone that one explanation of consciousness does not appear to fit all examples.

 

[yy2bggggs]

Okay. Just for the fun of it, I've decided to post 'character profiles' of some of the most frequent posters on this thread. ...

Wow. You've got me pegged just right!

 

[westprog]

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:



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



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.

You may have not intended it, but you've just pointed out the central flaw in the intelligent-thermostats-stupid-rocks theory.

It's possible to use either a physical or a computational definition of information. If you are trying to devise a physical theory, you need to use the physical definition of information.

In the physical world - i.e. the real world - there's a lot of information. In fact, there's too much. It permeates everything. If you want to explain consciousness in the real world, then you need to deal with this. It's convenient to think that a thermostat carries one bit of data, but it's not true.

 

[westprog]

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.

I've given a physical definition for "switch". I may have taken about a tenth of the time that Rocketdodger spent over his very thorough logical definition, and his definition was far more precise and well-defined. But mine was appropriate for a physical theory.

 

[westprog]

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.

A change in velocity, momentum, or position seems to me to be a change in behaviour, every bit as much as a change in appearance or state.

The rock changes such behaviour because of the actions of external forces - which is exactly the same as the thermocouple. The thermocouple interacts with its environment. Indeed, if it didn't, it wouldn't be much use. It is struck by air molecules, and exchanges energy with them. (Or some other medium - but the principle is the same).

If you want to define behaviour as relating entirely to changes within an object, then you exclude the thermostat. Indeed, you exclude much of what a human does as well. If you have a definition that includes the thermostat then ipso facto you include the rock.

Since there's a certain reluctance to define behaviour, here's my off-the-cuff attempt:

BEHAVIOUR - a change in the physical properties of an object due to its interaction with its environment.

And as with my definition of SWITCH, feel free to provide a better.

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.

I have no idea why you would say any such thing.

Yes.





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

It's an excellent logical definition, but if you are attempting to formulate a physical theory then you need a physical definition.

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.

Of course it is changing its state. It's movement in the thermostat which changes its state. Any physical change in an object is a change in its physical state. The state of any object is defined by a number of properties, one of which is its position. And if you take a look at physical definitions of information, you'll find that to be part of it.

When snooker balls collide on a table, they end up with nothing changed but their position. That's how they exchange information. The components of a difference engine or an adding machine just change position, and they perform computation.

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.

I posted a picture. I think that's a fairly clear example of how hot rocks can switch events. And contrary to what you may have learned in school, volcanoes aren't made of papier-maché and food dye - they are made of rocks. They get hot and switch events.

Look out your window and you'll see a landscape - almost anywhere on the planet - formed by rocks switching.

 

[westprog]

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.

I have addressed this but -what on Earth do you think a volcano is made of? There's nothing there but rocks - hot rocks, cold rocks, molten rocks. They are changing their state, and very dramatically changing their behaviour.

Now, I've given my physical definitions of SWITCH and BEHAVIOUR for physical objects. If anyone has a better physical definition, let's have it. In the meantime, the example clearly shows how rocks switch, change state, and change behaviour.

STATE: the physical parameters defining a physical object.

 

[westprog]

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.

If you can't formulate a precise physical definition of processing information, then I'm not surprised. Here's mine:

PROCESSING INFORMATION: The interaction of a physical object with its environment.

It will be seen that it's very broad. So broad, in fact, that it covers anything that's ever happened anywhere. Is it useful? Not particularly. I'm not sure if the concept of "information" is a particularly useful one in physics. I wrongly dismissed it entirely earlier in the thread.

But given the physical definition of "information" in the links Aku has provided, I can't immediately see how to narrow it down further.

 

[maatorc]

I do not believe we currently can explain the behavior of objects being affected by gravity. There are a number of qualities exhibited by such objects, such as "falling," that defy a full mathematical description.
Thus I advocate the notion of a "Hard Problem of Gravity,", or "HPG," that must be solved if we are to eventually grasp the full nature of gravity.......

This thread has gone - well, who knows where?
Is 'gravity' a 'push' or a 'pull'?

 

[westprog]

Wow. You've got me pegged just right!

Cruel but fair.

 

[PixyMisa]

PROCESSING INFORMATION: The interaction of a physical object with its environment.

That's so overbroad as to be useless. Why would we call that "processing information" rather than just interaction?

BEHAVIOUR - a change in the physical properties of an object due to its interaction with its environment.

That, though, is pretty close. Behaviour is any change in the observable properties of a system.

 

[westprog]

That's so overbroad as to be useless. Why would we call that "processing information" rather than just interaction?

That's the point, isn't it? Given the definition of information in a physical sense, how can it be narrowed down? In which case, how can any event be given special status?

 

[Mitchell314]

That's the point, isn't it? Given the definition of information in a physical sense, how can it be narrowed down? In which case, how can any event be given special status?

Thus why I made this post. It can be narrowed down to "organized" processing.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Well, the fact that you USED to hold that position certainly implies that you were younger at the time.

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.

So basically no amount of anything will convince you. Evidence, anecdotes, expertise, logic. All must bow to what you already KNOW is true. Now, what does that make me think of ?

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.

Certainly. But then that would mean that electrons process information, as well. In fact, it would mean that everything processes information, making the term, as I said before, useless. Wikipedia seems to agree with you. So either we drop the term and find a useful one or we use the term differently.

Otherwise, rocks process information, brains process information. Since they both process information, at different levels of complexity, we could say that rocks are conscious. But I think we all agree that rocks are NOT conscious. So what's the difference ? Once we establish that, we can define consciousness in a way that we can spot what is and what isn't conscious.

Almost everyone here has agreed that behaviour is pretty much the only way to tell if something is conscious. In fact, that's pretty much true for all other terms. So what's the behaviour of a conscious entity ?

 

[Belz...]

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

I didn't overlook it. I never saw a definition in there. In fact, you had been so clear to me before that you DIDN'T have a definition that I was convinced of it.

Let's take a look:

I've stated repeatedly that the words 'consciousness' and 'awareness' are synonymous

Really ? I took "consciousness" to mean "awareness of oneself". I guess if you want that to be "self-consciousness" then fine.

Again, consciousness is qualitative experience of any kind.

Is that your definition ? What's "qualitative experience" ? I honestly have no clue. How do you define it, and how do you observe it in anyone but yourself ?

Wow, so you wanna play that game with even such well established terms like information processing...?

It's not a "game". I'm obviously not using the same definition of "information processing" as you and so I was asking for your definition.

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.

So, basically, instead of providing said definition you ask me to look up someone ELSE's definition ? It's pretty clear that if you and I don't agree on the definition, then a third party's definition might just serve to complexify things, no ?

I'd very much prefer not to be rude but you're really pushing it Belz... -_-

Your emotional state is of no interest to me.

 

[Belz...]

Character Profiles:

Or Just when you thought Akumanimani couldn't get more condescending.

Westprog: Presents the obvious truth even when its unpopular.

The truth being "this is how consciousness feels, therefore it must be that way."

AkuManiMani: Tact of a 5 year-old and easily frustrated with the limitations of others -- especially elders.

Akumanimani believes that disagreement means lack of understanding. Don't worry, lots of people think that way.

Rocketdodger: Unfortunately, has a tendency to be blinded by his own pride and is reluctant to venture beyond conceptual comfort zones.

Of course it's pride.

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.

So says the narrator of the story. Sheesh. Get over yourself, Aku.

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.

Considering that the people you are talking about are actually trying to provide workable definitions of something to be studied while you guys strive to make it just sound mystical, I find that insulting.

Belz...: Has an admirable no-nonsense attitude.

Why, thank you.

Also has an unfortunate tendency to take things at face value without depth of consideration.

I'm being accused of this by people who refuse to define consciousness based on what it "feels" like ? What is "feel" if not take things at face value ?

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.

Same objection.

 

[Belz...]

If you can't formulate a precise physical definition of processing information, then I'm not surprised.

It's not that I can't formulate it. English isn't my first language, and sometimes it's difficult to summon the terms I need to put it into text succintly.

PROCESSING INFORMATION: The interaction of a physical object with its environment.

In other words, interaction of a physical object with others. Again, Wiki seems to agree with you. So everything processes information. Neat, but useless in the context of this discussion, as you admitted.

 

[Belz...]

So.... should we limit "consciousness" to turing machines ?

And, does an ant colony count ? Humm...

Too early in the day for thinking...

 

[volatile]

Almost everyone here has agreed that behaviour is pretty much the only way to tell if something is conscious. In fact, that's pretty much true for all other terms. So what's the behaviour of a conscious entity ?

And that, Belz, is precisely the problem some people are pretending isn't a problem at all. We (humanity) don't have an coherent answer to that question yet, and to pretend that we do is hubristic at best and foolish at worst.

 

[westprog]

Thus why I made this post. It can be narrowed down to "organized" processing.

The problem is in giving a precise physical definition of "organised". The only definition in physics that I'm aware of relates to entropy - and that's again a very wide definition.