The Hard Problem of Gravity

[westprog]

It isn't me backpedalling. It is you being unable to parse a sentence.



Sure thing.

So "useful to" means anything that might affect the state of anything?* Do you think about these things before you type them? Do you realise that that includes just about anything? The temperature of one rock might effect the temperature of another one buried underneath it. So one rock is "useful to" its neighbour.

I wish you'd just think clearly about these things instead of rattling off whatever comes into your head. You're rebutting your own arguments without realising it.

*My paraphrase. Quote of quotes disappear. I believe it's accurate though.

 

[westprog]

Care to tell how you made the stretch from the context of brains and computers processing data to a fossil representing data? See what i mean with context?

Edit: Some easy definition of data processing can be found here:
"Processing
Practically all naturally occurring processes can be viewed as examples of data processing systems where "observable" information in the form of pressure, light, etc. are converted by human observers into electrical signals in the nervous system as the senses we recognize as touch, sound, and vision. Even the interaction of non-living systems may be viewed in this way as rudimentary information processing systems.

Conventional usage of the terms data processing and information systems restricts their use to refer to the algorithmic derivations, logical deductions, and statistical calculations that recur perennially in general business environments, rather than in the more expansive sense of all conversions of real-world measurements into real-world information in, say, an organic biological system or even a scientific or engineering system."

If you are going to post a definition, you should read it, and then you should consider which of several definitions should be applicable. Clearly from the above we see that a rock in the sun is processing information. We also see that the definition is restricted purely for engineering convenience.

If you have questions, repost them and I'll answer them if they seem interesting. I have to warn you, though - so far you're lagging behind the rest of the class.

 

[westprog]

You're saying that a rock isn't information ? Why would photons be, then ?

Of course a rock is information. Everything in the universe is information, and everything in the universe is processing information. The Strong AI people want to restrict this flow of information to relate only to humans. And at the same time, to make humans not special.

WHAT ? Now I know you're being dishonest. WE're the ones trying to make it anything BUT special, by saying that there is nothing inherently mysterious or inexplicable about consciousness and that it most assuredly applies to computers AND humans AND dolphins.

Which rules out effectively the entire universe apart from some minor contaminents on the surface of one planet. You clearly are trying to make consciousness something extremely unique in the universe. You want to restrict it to human beings, animals, and certain devices made by human beings. That seems like a pretty human-centric theory to me. You emphatically deny that consciousness is associated with any of the information that permeates the universe.

 

[Christian Klippel]

If you are going to post a definition, you should read it, and then you should consider which of several definitions should be applicable. Clearly from the above we see that a rock in the sun is processing information. We also see that the definition is restricted purely for engineering convenience.

If you have questions, repost them and I'll answer them if they seem interesting. I have to warn you, though - so far you're lagging behind the rest of the class.

It is you who should read it. And understand it too, of course. The first paragraph clearly staets an example of data processing by a human brain. The second paragraph starts with "conventional". Nowhere does it say that the definition is "restricted purely for engineering convenience." The word "conventional" at the start implies that it can be used for other systems as well, and the first paragraph is an example of that.

From the remainder of your post i see that you are either unwilling or unable to browse back this thread by a page, although i even gave you the exact number of the posting where the question where raised. You make it clear that you only want to argue, no matter what, and intend to evade a real discussion.

 

[westprog]

Care to elaborate what that special position is supposed to be? Or do you simply drop such words here just to suit your case?

Human beings are the people for whom data processing books are written. That's why the field of data processing involves information that human beings want. The scientific area of information theory is not human centred. The Strong AI approach is to use the human-centred definition and ignore the scientific one.

 

[westprog]

It is you who should read it. And understand it too, of course. The first paragraph clearly staets an example of data processing by a human brain. The second paragraph starts with "conventional". Nowhere does it say that the definition is "restricted purely for engineering convenience." The word "conventional" at the start

Means for human convenience.

implies that it can be used for other systems as well, and the first paragraph is an example of that.

From the remainder of your post i see that you are either unwilling or unable to browse back this thread by a page,

Correctomundo.

although i even gave you the exact number of the posting where the question where raised. You make it clear that you only want to argue, no matter what, and intend to evade a real discussion.

 

[westprog]

No kidding. I spent like 2 hours coming up with definitions in first order logic, of all things, and he claims nobody has provided definitions??

As I have said already -- what a joke.

The sad thing is, that 'dodger probably did spend several hours working out his logic puzzle, not realising that what was required was a way to connect the logic to the physics. We already know that the logic works with the engineering.

 

[Mercutio]

Of course a rock is information. Everything in the universe is information, and everything in the universe is processing information. The Strong AI people want to restrict this flow of information to relate only to humans. And at the same time, to make humans not special.

Which rules out effectively the entire universe apart from some minor contaminents on the surface of one planet. You clearly are trying to make consciousness something extremely unique in the universe. You want to restrict it to human beings, animals, and certain devices made by human beings. That seems like a pretty human-centric theory to me. You emphatically deny that consciousness is associated with any of the information that permeates the universe.

I have yet to see a rock exhibit the type of behavior which we aggregate in that fuzzy set we call "conscious". It really does not matter if there is information processing going on by one definition and not by another; the vocabulary of consciousness does not depend on the process, but on the behavior. There may well be different mechanisms behind the behaviors; as observers within our language community, we simply see the behaviors. Perhaps some poet would say that a rock sits, or waits, or is patient, but for the most part the reason we do not infer consciousness in rocks is that we do not see them behave.

Once again, the argument in this thread is conflating several different levels of analysis.

 

[westprog]

lol.

You mean like that video I showed you of the bipedal robot running? Did you watch the end, where it served a platter of tea to some people and bowed to them? Can dolphins walk and serve tea?

Furthermore, if you were actually educated in this issue, you would know that the reason computers don't pass the turing test is because understanding human language like a human requires a body like a human.

That you think it would even make sense for an entity confined to a few silicon chips to converse about the external world in human language is indicative of how little you know.

If only you'd take the next step and realise that not only is human-like consciousness an irrelevant concept when dealing with computers (at least in their present form) and to get the idea that calling computers conscious doesn't tell us anything useful about them.

If computer consciousness is nothing like human consciousness, then what is the point of saying "computers are conscious"? We know how they work. We know how to get them to do stuff.

Don't you think that there's something odd about claiming that there's nothing special about human consciousness, and simultaneously admitting that it can never be duplicated?

 

[westprog]

Actually, fossils, man.

But that changes nothing. Rocks are "like" computers in that every "thing" processes information. But rocks aren't "like" computers in that they are now self-aware, don't switch, etc.

"Self-aware". Yes, self-aware things are different than things which aren't self-aware. And we define "self-aware" according to... how was that again?

I already demonstrated repeatedly that a rock can be a switch, and can contain many switches. I didn't do that in the belief that there is some magical significance to a switch though.

 

[westprog]

I have yet to see a rock exhibit the type of behavior which we aggregate in that fuzzy set we call "conscious". It really does not matter if there is information processing going on by one definition and not by another; the vocabulary of consciousness does not depend on the process, but on the behavior. There may well be different mechanisms behind the behaviors; as observers within our language community, we simply see the behaviors. Perhaps some poet would say that a rock sits, or waits, or is patient, but for the most part the reason we do not infer consciousness in rocks is that we do not see them behave.

Once again, the argument in this thread is conflating several different levels of analysis.

If we want to understand consciousness, then we'll need a physical theory to do so. If it's claimed that such a theory exists, then I'll ask for the details.

But if we want a behavioural analysis, then we should consider that what makes us think that a class of entities is conscious is the ability of members of that class to spontaneously assert consciousness.

 

[westprog]

Would that convince you ?

Because there have been a number of convincing chat-bots in the past. Are you saying that a marginally more complex and complete chat-bot would be conscious to you ?

I've been thinking about this. While I see no need to even consider whether a computer, or a rock, or a thermostat is conscious, as they exhibit no behaviour that would indicate that they are, I would think it worth investigating if some entity was able to show consciousness enough to engage in a conversation.

I wouldn't regard it as de facto conscious, though, in the absence of a theoretical basis for thinking it was. A sufficiently complex program might just about be able to fool me - but it would not be necessarily conscious.

Incidentally, it would be easy enough to program a routing to post "LOL" every thirty seconds to some chatrooms, and some people would believe it was human. That's not really the Turing test.

 

[westprog]

How satisfying this must be for you. Someone gives you a definition over a 50+ page thread, and at some point since you refused to accept the definition, you ask for it again, saying it wasn't given, and when your opponents simply point out that it's been given and are reluctant to do your searching for you, you claim they are evading.

Of course, you aren't fooling me.

I keep explaining what constitutes a scientific definition, and a physical theory. Any number of vague definitions from colloquial English can be given - using dualist words like "useful" - but that's really not sufficient.

 

[Mercutio]

But if we want a behavioural analysis, then we should consider that what makes us think that a class of entities is conscious is the ability of members of that class to spontaneously assert consciousness.

Oh, not at all!

We infer consciousness, and use a vocabulary of consciousness, to describe the behavior of human and non-human animals, cars, computers, tornadoes... we will infer consciousness, in the absence of assertions, quite often. Usually, such inferences are made in situations where we are ignorant of the causes of a behavior--when it is not easily predictable. When a car refuses to start, when a tornado aims at a trailer park, when a computer waits until just before that big paper is due before choosing to crash. When a dog gets stubborn, when a horse refuses to jump a gate, when people change their minds.

We absolutely do not need an assertion of consciousness in order to treat a behavior as conscious. And of course, an assertion of consciousness can be ignored if we do not see it (as you say) as spontaneous. You meant, probably, that a computer programmed to assert consciousness does not count; I would add a person who insists he is perfectly happy doing the bidding of a cult leader. Some may say those actions are conscious; others would say that he is "brainwashed" and being controlled not by himself but by another. Any time we see sufficient controlling power in the environment, we need not infer consciousness.

Of course, what that does, boiled down, is largely equate claims of consciousness with ignorance of determining factors. And that seems about right.

 

[Mercutio]

I keep explaining what constitutes a scientific definition, and a physical theory. Any number of vague definitions from colloquial English can be given - using dualist words like "useful" - but that's really not sufficient.

"Useful" is a pragmatist word, not a dualist word.

 

[rocketdodger]

So "useful to" means anything that might affect the state of anything?* Do you think about these things before you type them? Do you realise that that includes just about anything? The temperature of one rock might effect the temperature of another one buried underneath it. So one rock is "useful to" its neighbour.

What is wrong with that?

I don't think of rocks finding information useful. Most people don't. Probably because we don't think of rocks as being decision making systems.

But as you have shown, one could. And in that case, one might also say they find such and such information useful.

As you have shown, one can apply a given definition from a different frame of reference and make anything into anything. So what?

 

[westprog]

"Useful" is a pragmatist word, not a dualist word.

Sorry, that was a joke. I don't know what a "dualist word" is really. Pragmatist word is better. Non-scientific word is what I was getting at.

 

[westprog]

What is wrong with that?

I don't think of rocks finding information useful. Most people don't. Probably because we don't think of rocks as being decision making systems.

But as you have shown, one could. And in that case, one might also say they find such and such information useful.

As you have shown, one can apply a given definition from a different frame of reference and make anything into anything. So what?

Because we are supposed to be looking for phenomena explicable in all frames of reference. If you use a term so heavily context-dependent, it ceases to be scientifically meaningful.

 

[rocketdodger]

The sad thing is, that 'dodger probably did spend several hours working out his logic puzzle, not realising that what was required was a way to connect the logic to the physics. We already know that the logic works with the engineering.

The logic is a description of the physics using physics.

Physics is all there is. Every thought about logic in my head is pure physics. So for you to demand a "link" between logic and physics is very strange.

I finally realized what your problem is. You have a fundamental inability to understand how nothing but particles can give rise to everything in your life.

We are particles. We describe the behavior of particles with mathematics that exist only in our heads and only in the form of more particles. We predict and make use of the behavior of particles using those particles in our heads. We construct computers -- more particles -- to harness the predictable behaviors of other particles. A rock is just particles and we are just particles. Logic, mathematics, engineering -- they are just particles as well.

If you can't wrap your brain around this simple truth then you really have no chance to understand where consciousness comes from.

EDIT: And when you do, you will realize what Mercutio has been saying from the very beginning -- behavior really is all that matters.

 

[rocketdodger]

Because we are supposed to be looking for phenomena explicable in all frames of reference.

...and?

How does the existence of an explanation in each frame of reference imply that all the explanations are the same?

The only thing that must stay the same is the phenomena.

If you use a term so heavily context-dependent, it ceases to be scientifically meaningful.

Oh, really? So the periodic table isn't meaningful? Because that is pretty context-dependent.

The difference here is that you haven't twisted the definitions involved to suit your argument. If you did, then we would have "why does the difference in number of valence electrons matter? Number only matters to humans, electronegtivity only matters to humans, blah blah blah."

Am I wrong? Could I not twist the entire periodic table into useless mush just like you did with rocks and switches?