The Hard Problem of Gravity

[PixyMisa]

What I find frustrating about Pixy is that he really thinks that SHRDLU exhibits something like consciousness.

What, you think it doesn't?

How... peculiar.

Okay, then, I'll humour you. What is there to consciousness that SHRDLU doesn't exhibit?

 

[westprog]

What, you think it doesn't?

How... peculiar.

Okay, then, I'll humour you. What is there to consciousness that SHRDLU doesn't exhibit?

I keep referring back to the Turing test because it's far more sophisticated than it initially seems.

 

[porch]

How can you claim that something exists when you can't even describe it?

Easy, now. If everyone thought that way, it would totally kill the R and P forum. Then what would we do?

 

[PixyMisa]

I keep referring back to the Turing test because it's far more sophisticated than it initially seems.

Unless... It isn't! [Dun dun dun!]

So, what is there to consciousness that SHRDLU doesn't exhibit?

 

[PixyMisa]

Easy, now. If everyone thought that way, it would totally kill the R and P forum. Then what would we do?

Well, that would imply that everyone on the planet was some sort of engineer, so I guess we'd spend all our time discussing live steam miniature trains and Haibane Renmei.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Yeah, a brain is really like a computer, with all that input, and data and stuff. So if you don't think they are really the same, you must be a closet dualist, or theist, or [insert pejorative phrase here].

So, then go ahead and tell what exactly a brain is like. Is it more like a tree? Or more like a flower? Or even maybe more like a lightbulb?

So, come on, tell us what it is like. Obviously you state that it there is no similarity, and since you mention input, data and stuff, i guess that you want to say that a brain does not get input, holds no data, and has no other stuff?

The problem is that the brain does not work just like a computer, or like any given computer program. We don't know how critical the precise operations of neurons are to the brain. We don't know that the brains actions can be digitised without losing something. But we have these computers that do sort of the same kind of thing, so they must be the same kind of thing, right?

Seems you are a bit confused. First you state with certainty that "the brain does not work just like a computer, or like any given computer program." just to go on and then say that we "don't know how critical the precise operations of neurons are to the brain. We don't know that the brains actions can be digitised without losing something.".

So, if you don't know exactly how the brain works, how can you be so sure that it doesn't work like a computer?

Come on, explain it to us. Simple denial without any arguments doesn't help you at all. Tell us what exactly the difference in working is between a brain that reacts on stimuli, and a complex computer that reacts on stimuli. Preferably the computer being of the massive parallel computing type with proper external systems like sensors, cameras, microphones, etc. Like a brain with external system like skin, eyes, ears, etc...

Can you tell us and explain to us the difference?

Greetings,

Chris

 

[westprog]

So, then go ahead and tell what exactly a brain is like. Is it more like a tree? Or more like a flower? Or even maybe more like a lightbulb?

So, come on, tell us what it is like. Obviously you state that it there is no similarity, and since you mention input, data and stuff, i guess that you want to say that a brain does not get input, holds no data, and has no other stuff?

And a tree and a flower hold and process data too. Trees record data that we can use to tell what the weather was like hundreds of years ago.Are trees conscious?

It's already been shown in this thread that rocks receive input. What makes a rock not as conscious as a Dell?

Of course, there's the "and stuff" to deal with. Most of the arguments come down to the "and stuff". Also it's got to be really complex.

Seems you are a bit confused. First you state with certainty that "the brain does not work just like a computer, or like any given computer program." just to go on and then say that we "don't know how critical the precise operations of neurons are to the brain. We don't know that the brains actions can be digitised without losing something.".

So, if you don't know exactly how the brain works, how can you be so sure that it doesn't work like a computer?

Now, I know that we occasionally get a bit mixed up about burden of proof on these forums, but it's really up to the people making the claims to prove them.

Come on, explain it to us. Simple denial without any arguments doesn't help you at all. Tell us what exactly the difference in working is between a brain that reacts on stimuli, and a complex computer that reacts on stimuli. Preferably the computer being of the massive parallel computing type with proper external systems like sensors, cameras, microphones, etc. Like a brain with external system like skin, eyes, ears, etc...

Can you tell us and explain to us the difference?

You tell me the difference between a computer and a rock.

 

[PixyMisa]

And a tree and a flower hold and process data too.

In some ways, yes, they do.

Trees record data that we can use to tell what the weather was like hundreds of years ago.

Certainly.

Are trees conscious?

Do they carry out self-referential information processing?

It's already been shown in this thread that rocks receive input.

No.

What makes a rock not as conscious as a Dell?

It doesn't process information.

Of course, there's the "and stuff" to deal with.

No.

Most of the arguments come down to the "and stuff".

Yes, which is why they fail.

Also it's got to be really complex.

No.

Now, I know that we occasionally get a bit mixed up about burden of proof on these forums, but it's really up to the people making the claims to prove them.

Indeed. So, what is there to consciousness that SHRDLU doesn't exhibit?

You tell me the difference between a computer and a rock.

Computers switch. Rocks don't.

 

[westprog]

Do they carry out self-referential information processing?

Why not tell us precisely what SRIP is and we can make up our own minds.

Wait - let me guess - is it information processing that's self-referential?

 

[Christian Klippel]

And a tree and a flower hold and process data too. Trees record data that we can use to tell what the weather was like hundreds of years ago.Are trees conscious?

Wait a second. You said that a brain is not like a computer. So i asked you to tell us what a brain is like. Since i don't know what you think a brain is like, i was asking you if you think that they are more like a tree, a flower, a lightbulb, or what else do you think they are like.

It's already been shown in this thread that rocks receive input. What makes a rock not as conscious as a Dell?

Care to link to the post(s) where that was said? And what input they receive? And how they process that input?

Of course, there's the "and stuff" to deal with. Most of the arguments come down to the "and stuff". Also it's got to be really complex.

You are the one who brought the notion of "and stuff" in here. So you have to explain what that stuff is.

Now, I know that we occasionally get a bit mixed up about burden of proof on these forums, but it's really up to the people making the claims to prove them.

Do you accept or reject the notion that a brain gets input from various sensory thing in a body? Do you accept or reject that a brain stores memories of such information and retrieves them later when needed? Do you accept or reject that a brain processes these informations? Do you accept or reject that a brain controls body functions according to the results of such input, retrieval and processing?

If yes, then tell us what you think the difference is between a computer and a brain. If no, tell us what a computer is lacking, or what more a brain does that a computer doesnt.

I say yes, a brain does the things listed above. And that strongly points to a brain being like a computer. No matter how more sophisticated a brain is compared to current computers. The underlying principles are the same.

I say they both work the same in principle. Just that the brain had a tad more development history (called evolution) than current computers. But what do you think the principal differences are?

You tell me the difference between a computer and a rock.

A rock doesn't process data.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[westprog]

A rock doesn't process data.

 

[Christian Klippel]

[qimg]http://www.treasure-hunting-team.com/Pictures/Fossil-Fish-1.jpg[/qimg]

And what exactly do fossils have to do with a stone processing data? Do you even know how fossils develop?

However, evasion and goalpost moving noted.

Try better next time.

 

[yy2bggggs]

A rock doesn't process data.

Unless you count things such as the averaging of energy inputs and outputs into the rock's surface temperature.

 

[Belz...]

So I said you described me as using dualistic talk, and you call me a liar and say I use dualistic talk?

would you kindly READ my posts ? It would help if you actually remembered what you said that I was responding to.

Evasion duly noted.

Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean I didn't answer.

Exactly how every action in the universe gets condensed down to single bits is precisely the issue.

Huh ?

 

[Belz...]

I just mentioned the Turing test. If a machince "consciousness" were to pass that, I'd investigate the code to see how it did it. I'm not saying that I'd be convinced, but I'd give it a good look.

Laughable. The "turing test" is convincing people that the machine is conscious, so obviously if it DID pass the test, for you, it would convince you, so you have no idea what you're saying.

What, specifically, would convince you ?

 

[westprog]

Laughable. The "turing test" is convincing people that the machine is conscious, so obviously if it DID pass the test, for you, it would convince you, so you have no idea what you're saying.

What, specifically, would convince you ?

Get a program to contribute to this thread. It's entirely digital, so no problems interfacing.

 

[rocketdodger]

I just mentioned the Turing test. If a machince "consciousness" were to pass that, I'd investigate the code to see how it did it. I'm not saying that I'd be convinced, but I'd give it a good look.

On the other hand, there are numerous entities you probably consider "conscious" that couldn't even begin to participate in a turing test.

Very young humans.
Mentally challenged humans.
Monkeys.
Dolphins.
Elephants.
.
.
.
etc

If you want to know why we feel you won't ever admit a silicon machine is "conscious," regardless of what it does, just look at the above.

This is basically the pattern with you (and all those like you). When asked for an example of a behavior that only conscious entities exhibit, you invariably come up with 1) something that clearly isn't a requirement and you just haven't thought it through or 2) something that computers haven't already done and you just aren't aware of it.

 

[rocketdodger]

And a tree and a flower hold and process data too. Trees record data that we can use to tell what the weather was like hundreds of years ago.Are trees conscious?

It's already been shown in this thread that rocks receive input. What makes a rock not as conscious as a Dell?

You tell me the difference between a computer and a rock.

This has already been covered in this thread as well.

I find it disingenuous that you bring up points already addressed and pretend that they haven't been.

The difference between a rock and a computer is that a computer processes information in an organized and predictable manner according to humans and the computer itself whereas a rock does not.

And, by the way, it turns out you were wrong, and I was wrong to agree with you. A rock does NOT switch because the definition of switching includes the requirement that the entity in question is able to reach each state from the other. A rock simply cannot do this. If a rock erodes due to wind, it is forever changed. My bad for overlooking that in my formal definition.

 

[rocketdodger]

Unless you count things such as the averaging of energy inputs and outputs into the rock's surface temperature.

Yep.

Rocks process data.

That doesn't mean it is of any use to any entity, though, and that is why they different from a computer.

 

[yy2bggggs]

That doesn't mean it is of any use to any entity, though, and that is why they different from a computer.

I'm not sure what you mean--we can certainly use this information. If rocks are significantly warmer than their environment, there's a strong implication that they had energy input recently--for example, the sun was out.

I'm not quite sure why this is supposed to be important. If a rock turned out to be a simple computer, what exactly does that imply? Is there some hidden a priori axiom that rocks must not meet any definition of consciousness for example?

Edit: Unless by "of any use" you're referring to things like switches as defined earlier? Still, my "why this is supposed to be important" question stands. I could probably, or not, think of some way a rock could be useful in that sense, but I'm not sure how it should affect anything either way.