The Hard Problem of Gravity

[rocketdodger]

I'm going to have to differ with you on this one. For starters, we as humans can recognize analogous relations but analogy is just similarity, not identity. There are points of overlap that relate all things to one another [which allows us to recognize analogy and metaphor] but the point is to define the essential characteristics of entities.

As with every other process in the universe, consciousness and mind are classes of phenomenal interaction. Artificial computers are analogous to brains in that they process and manipulate symbols to produce an output of some kind. What we seek to find out is what are the essential processes that give rise to what we colloquially call consciousness. If one were to go by the definition being proposed by S-AI then everything is 'conscious' and we're left with the nonsensical conclusion you've come to.

It is clear that simply processing information in a self referential manner is not sufficient to produce consciousness. That information processing is a necessary requisite to conscious experience is a given; everything that exists processes information in some capacity. What we seek to find out are what the sufficient requisites for consciousness are and what are its essential physical characteristics. To date, we don't have the answers to these questions which happen to be the core of the HPC/EMA.

What does any of this have to do with the post of mine it is supposedly in response to?

 

[rocketdodger]

That wasn't the question you asked me and I actually have, in fact, answered your original question.

Yes, it was, and no, you actually have not, in fact, answered it.

Unless you consider vomited word salad that begs the very question it is supposedly clearing up to be an "answer."

 

[Mercutio]

Answering the latter question first, no, the specific functions of the mind haven't been entirely explained yet, but I don't expect the brain to turn out to be a magic box, so I think one can make the educated presumption that we're eventually going to be able to explain every little thing a person does and expresses about themselves in terms of cognition.

Funny, I go the opposite direction. I don't think the brain is a magic box, so I think we're eventually going to be able to explain every little bit of what we call "cognition" (which, as I said, is a fuzzy combination of two very different sets of definitions, one of which is decidedly dualistic) in terms of behavior. In fact, we've done a tremendous job in that direction already.

On the issue of "experience," experience and cognition are two conceptually distinct entities, regardless of whether or not they may represent aspects of the same thing in a practical sense. When you conflate the two, you are introducing the concept of experience into a theory unnecessarily.

"Experience" as used here is not a term I use at all other than to show it is a metaphorical noun that reifies the behavior of experiencing; "cognition" is a term I use a little as possible because of the fuzziness, preferring "private behavior" as encompassing the portions of cognition that can actually be observed rather than merely inferred from outcomes. If I seem to conflate the two in my writing, it is perhaps from dismissing both.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Oh, you too?

So tell me then -- what operational changes should be made in cognitive science and artificial intelligence research in order to "start from what we have, instead of imposing our ideas on reality?"

Akumanimani couldn't answer that question. Can you?

You will only approve an answer that fullfills your agenda, as we all do, but I lose nothing by explaining a little bit more what I'm talking about.

Cognitive Sciences and AI research are looking for ghosts based on some weird premises. For instance, they tend to (simply) assume that everything that exists is material. By doing this (in other words by making a naive ontological commitment) they have achieved (at least) two things.

1) They ascribe reality to an idea on their PW, so, naturally, their PW start to be secondary and "internal" (duality is reached and boundaries like "objective" and "subjective" arise).

2) They close the door to achieving what they are looking for, because, again, they are merely following an idea (call it mind, call it consciousness, call it whatever you like, it is a ghost). It is their phlogiston, and they will never reach it.

Something more, another immense error is to assume that the device in vogue (they used to be hydraulic machines, later telephone centrals and now computers) can explain what we do. In our times this means that "the brain = computer". But this is, again, naive. Say yo want to replicate a function of a black box. Suddenly you reach it, you make your box behave like the black box and, in joy, you scream that you know what's inside the black box! To your surprise, the contents are completely different, only their output is similar.

Well, this is what is going to happen with every computer or device we can create that replicates what we do, why? because we do not understand what we do (what the brain does in your picture).

 

[porch]

You will only approve an answer that fullfills your agenda, as we all do, but I lose nothing by explaining a little bit more what I'm talking about.

Cognitive Sciences and AI research are looking for ghosts based on some weird premises. For instance, they tend to (simply) assume that everything that exists is material. By doing this (in other words by making a naive ontological commitment) they have achieved (at least) two things.

1) They ascribe reality to an idea on their PW, so, naturally, their PW start to be secondary and "internal" (duality is reached and boundaries like "objective" and "subjective" arise).

2) They close the door to achieving what they are looking for, because, again, they are merely following an idea (call it mind, call it consciousness, call it whatever you like, it is a ghost). It is their phlogiston, and they will never reach it.

Something more, another immense error is to assume that the device in vogue (they used to be hydraulic machines, later telephone centrals and now computers) can explain what we do. In our times this means that "the brain = computer". But this is, again, naive. Say yo want to replicate a function of a black box. Suddenly you reach it, you make your box behave like the black box and, in joy, you scream that you know what's inside the black box! To your surprise, the contents are completely different, only their output is similar.

Well, this is what is going to happen with every computer or device we can create that replicates what we do, why? because we do not understand what we do (what the brain does in your picture).

What a long way to say "no".

 

[Third Eye Open]

For instance, they tend to (simply) assume that everything that exists is material.

I assume that by 'material' you mean matter and energy. Or in other words, 'stuff that we can detect'.

How could assuming that something we can not detect may be influencing things in ways we can not know, be useful in any way of explaining anything?

Yes, I assume that everything that exists is material, because everything that I can detect with any means at all, is material.

Assuming things exist that you cannot detect in any way is what some people may refer to as 'insanity'.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I assume that by 'material' you mean matter and energy. Or in other words, 'stuff that we can detect'.

How could assuming that something we can not detect may be influencing things in ways we can not know, be useful in any way of explaining anything?

Assuming things exist that you cannot detect in any way is what some people may refer to as 'insanity'.

Strawman.

Excuse me.... WHO said ANYTHING about "things we cannot detect"? This is a big problem in this forum, as I have always stated. The world offers far more variety than "black and white" (read it materialists and some form of immaterialists), and it is a shame that in here many are so biased in to this poor dichotomy when there are all kind of colors, smells and flavors.

By "material" I mean what I meant, but it is difficult to see (I reckon) if you do not know my thinking. Nothing to be worried about, as it is not precisely something you have encounter before.

Briefly stated, I do not make ontological commitments. That said, my thinking is pretty similar to what most materialists claim.

Let's examine your way of thinking, I will show you why is naive:

Yes, I assume that everything that exists is material, because everything that I can detect with any means at all, is material.

"I assume that every X is Y, because all X I can detect are Ys"

Not a sound syllogism, if you ask me. And it gets worse, because "Y" is an assumption, a projection used to explain "X", not "X" itself, "Y" has, also, changed its meaning throughout history, to accommodate itself in the new theoretical accounts about reality. Finally, the equivalence principle itself is weak, at best.

In all reality, we do not need matter at all, all we need are repeatable facts and theories that let's us connect the facts in an orderly way. One of such theories is, indeed, materialism, but as soon as we fall in an ontological commitment with (any) theory (ascribing it reality beyond our thinking) we start to talk nonsense.

But let's stop here, we are derailing the current issue.

 

[Mitchell314]

We learn with what we have. I see no problem with that.

 

[rocketdodger]

What a long way to say "no".

Well, give him some credit. Akumanimani's "no" was a post about four times that long.

 

[PixyMisa]

Excuse me.... WHO said ANYTHING about "things we cannot detect"?

Why, you, if you were saying anything at all.

This is a big problem in this forum, as I have always stated. The world offers far more variety than "black and white" (read it materialists and some form of immaterialists), and it is a shame that in here many are so biased in to this poor dichotomy when there are all kind of colors, smells and flavors.

No.

By "material" I mean what I meant

I see. You meant what you meant, but when someone asks you what you mean, you cannot answer.

but it is difficult to see (I reckon) if you do not know my thinking. Nothing to be worried about, as it is not precisely something you have encounter before.

Does not address the point.

Briefly stated, I do not make ontological commitments. That said, my thinking is pretty similar to what most materialists claim.

Does not address the point.

Let's examine your way of thinking, I will show you why is naive:

"I assume that every X is Y, because all X I can detect are Ys"

Strawman.

Not a sound syllogism, if you ask me. And it gets worse, because "Y" is an assumption, a projection used to explain "X", not "X" itself, "Y" has, also, changed its meaning throughout history, to accommodate itself in the new theoretical accounts about reality. Finally, the equivalence principle itself is weak, at best.

Strawman.

In all reality, we do not need matter at all, all we need are repeatable facts and theories that let's us connect the facts in an orderly way. One of such theories is, indeed, materialism, but as soon as we fall in an ontological commitment with (any) theory (ascribing it reality beyond our thinking) we start to talk nonsense.

Strawman. At least you are consistent!

But let's stop here, we are derailing the current issue.

The current issue seems to be people talking nonsense and failing to define their terms, so you are right on topic!

 

[RandFan]

I wish it was a strawman. Read the thermostat discussion.

Your wish is my command because it is a strawman. You're conclusion is based on ignorance just as a conclusion that flight was mystical before we understood aerodynamics. And FTR, back when I was a dualist I dealt with the thermostat argument and now that I've come to realize that the position is bankrupt I can say that I've dealt with it from both sides now.

 

[RandFan]

Your wish is my command because it is a strawman. You're conclusion is based on ignorance just as a conclusion that flight was mystical before we understood aerodynamics. And FTR, back when I was a dualist I dealt with the thermostat argument and now that I've come to realize that the position is bankrupt I can say that I've dealt with it from both sides now.

I can't edit for somereason.

By position I mean the "dualistic" position.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

By position I mean the "dualistic" position.

Is that a variation on the missionary position?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

No.

Yes.

 

[Mercutio]

Yes.

Maybe.







(am I doing this right?)

 

[Darat]

Maybe.







(am I doing this right?)

Depends.

 

[westprog]

Right.

So let's see where this reasoning takes us:

1) Without human interpretation, every system in the universe is entirely different from every other system.
2) I am not the same system as you.
3) Therefore by 1) and 2) there is no similarity between you and I other than what humans interpret as being a similarity.
4) Therefore either a) consciousness is nothing but human interpretation or b) all systems can be conscious c) exactly one system can be conscious.

Congratulations, you have just shown the HPC to be garbage!

It strikes me as somewhat comical that even when you think you are arguing in favor of the HPC you actually aren't. But then again, thats how logic works -- it always wins in the end.

You've actually come close to the real reason for assuming that consciousness exists in more than one person. Human interpretation. It's also human interpretation that leads us to suspect that dogs might well be conscious, that bacteria might be, and that thermostats almost certainly aren't.

 

[westprog]

They would have significance to any system they had significance to.

What is devastating to your viewpoint is that if you enter a line of text, hit "Submit Reply," and suddenly every single human evaporates, your computer and the rest of the internet will still behave in a certain way. In particular, your computer will still package information into packets, your ISP will route them according to other information, any queries to the JREF Forum servers will be completed according to still other information, and it is just possible that latency issues might result in the information the no-longer-existing you generated being displayed on a screen somewhere. There would be no human to interpret that information in the way that humans interpret information -- so what?

The fact that binary is completely alien and completely meaningless to humans, yet it is the language of digital computers, sort of spits in the face of your notion that without humans there would be no meaning and hence no information in the universe.

That is exactly the reverse of the truth. It's quite easy to teach small children binary. They are quickly delighted to learn how to count to 31 on one hand. OTOH, binary is entirely meaningless to computers. It's just a concept human beings use to understand how computers work. If you want to know how computers really work, you have to look at electrons.

No computer ever made has ever understood binary. Nothing in the behaviour of computers indicates understanding. Computers don't use binary to communicate with each other any more than planets use gravity to communicate with each other. Computers operate like everything else in the physical world - without understanding or choice. The only thing that appears to have understanding and may have choice is a human being.

If we were to say that binary has meaning to computers, then we have to say that every force in the universe has meaning to every object in the universe. And "meaning" ceases to have meaning.

The same can be said of the cries of whales and the chirps of birds and the chemical signals bacteria send each other.

These are all entities which may to some degree be conscious. It's possible that whale cries have actual meaning to whales, in the way that binary has no meaning to computers.

For you to claim that such communication between entities that clearly understand the messages would in fact be meaningless if there were no humans is, quite literally, a joke.

Here's a chance for you then - post the funniest computer generated joke. That's a simple enough application for AI, surely?

 

[Mercutio]

Here's a chance for you then - post the funniest computer generated joke. That's a simple enough application for AI, surely?

Everything I have ever heard a computer say has been funnier than anything I have ever heard Carlos Mencia say. Does that count?

 

[westprog]

Everything I have ever heard a computer say has been funnier than anything I have ever heard Carlos Mencia say. Does that count?

Even on South Park?