The Hard Problem of Gravity

[westprog]

Right off the top of my head, I would say:



According to that scientific definition, the only rocks that switch are doped semiconductors. Not canyon stones, not volcanoes, not rocks falling off a cliff.

According to that scientific definition, all thermostats switch.

According to that definition, all atoms switch. What are rocks made of?

Now, what were you saying?

Furthermore, I realized (again) that you were wrong and I was (again) wrong to agree with you -- by my first order logic definition, rocks do not switch because of the "if and only if." There is no conceivable situation where a system external to a rock could enter a given (reversible) state if and only if the rock was in a given reversible state where it wouldn't make sense to say the rock genuinely switches. In other words, all of your examples so far aren't switching.

A rock expanding and contracting in the sun is a switch. It's not hard to see how that could effect any given physical system on a repeatable non-linear basis.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Well, why don't YOU give us your definition of "useful" and we'll see how well you do.

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.

What ? Evidence, please. So far I've only seen their opponents do this.

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.

WHAT ? Did you even READ what I wrote ? Pixy's and Dodger's definitions and arguments clearly make consciousness broader than yours or Nick's or Aku's. So what in the blazing hells are you on about ?

Honestly I think you either lost it or are desperatly trying to mount a ridiculous tu quoque.

 

[Belz...]

"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?

Your attempts at "forgetting" things that have already been discussed is getting old, fast.

I already demonstrated repeatedly that a rock can be a switch, and can contain many switches.

How was that again?

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.

But that's not what you said a few posts ago:

What, specifically, would convince you ?

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

So now, getting a program to contribute to this thread WOULDN'T convince you.

So, I ask again: What would ?

 

[Belz...]

Sorry, that was a joke. I don't know what a "dualist word" is really.

Clearly.

Does it tell us anything useful about people?

People think so.

People think lots of things.

I do not believe that consciousness as an idea came out of anything other than the experience of consciousness.

And we labeled it so without a frame of reference ? Doubtful.

 

[Belz...]

A system "switches" if a linear change in some internal behavior results in a nonlinear change in some other internal behavior, and both changes are bidirectional.

Nice try, Dodger. But by page 55 Westprog will have forgotten all about it.

 

[Nick227]

Here are the words of the man himself:

No "may" in there. And I haven't even seen the serious challenge yet.

Chalmers alters his definition and stance in different pieces, it's true. Personally, I don't believe in the HPC but I still feel it's a valid issue to discuss. What makes one bunch of neurons processing conscious and the bunch next to it not? It's a valid question if you ask me.

Nick

 

[Belz...]

Which bunch of neurons processing ISN'T conscious ?

 

[Nick227]

Good grief, Nick, that paper is strewn with references to self-reference! How can you possibly fail to grasp that?

Clearly the word "strewn" has a different connotation for you. Dennett does not use the term "self-reference" once.

What do you think a "proto-self evaluator" is? What do you think he's talking about when he says:

This is different, Pixy. Dennett is writing about thalamic-cortical looping and how this may be arbitrating which stream of data is conscious. I've no problem with this and have stated so on many occasions. Where I have issue is with your statement that the conscious stream must itself be self-referencing. This is not found in GWT.

Dennett's talking first about the fact that human consciousness is built up from a network of simpler information processing subsystems. But more generally, what's the alternative to infinite regress? Loops, Nick. Loops.

Yes, Dennett is talking about how in GWT individual modules avoid issues with IR. You are maintaining that what makes one data stream conscious and another not is the presence of self-referencing loops. In GWT, the "broadcast" or "global access" state is consciousness and it is simply not related to self-reference. It may be switched by proto-self evaluators but it is not inherently self-referencing.

There is no global access state. That's just a model, laid on top of self-reference.

In GWT, consciousness is the global access state, Pixy. This is likely the most fundamental precept of GWT.

GWT is a higher-level model of the human mind. It cannot exist without self-referential information processing.

I agree. But the fact remains that what makes one stream conscious and another not is not the presence of self-referencing loops. Global access is apparently switched, by ancilliary limbic processing. We don't understand fully how this happens and whether or not a HPC exists. That to me is an honest and realistic statement.

Again, what do you think you're talking about when you say "inner dialogue"?

You don't know what inner dialogue is?

Once again, there is no such thing as global access at any physical level. That's physically impossible. There's just neurons sending signals to one another.

Yes, but some signals are conscious and others are not. This is the crux with GWT...we don't yet know what creates the difference. But it isn't the presence of self-referencing loops in the actual stream.

Nick

 

[westprog]

Well, why don't YOU give us your definition of "useful" and we'll see how well you do.

As with a lot of English words, I realise that they should be used in context and not applied in scientific description unless they can have a new, more specific meaning.

The word "useful" means that something is of use to a person - i.e., a human being*. It's of use because somebody thinks it's of use. It's an inherently subjective word.

The word is used a lot by scientists in order to select data. That doesn't mean that one bit of data is more important in a scientific sense - just that it's more important to the scientist.

What ? Evidence, please. So far I've only seen their opponents do this.


WHAT ? Did you even READ what I wrote ? Pixy's and Dodger's definitions and arguments clearly make consciousness broader than yours or Nick's or Aku's. So what in the blazing hells are you on about ?

Honestly I think you either lost it or are desperatly trying to mount a ridiculous tu quoque.

I've claimed that consciousness is only observed in humans*. I've also said that it may well be a physical phenomenon. That means that if we can really find out how consciousness works, then it might be a principle that applies throughout the universe. Or it might be applicable throughout the universe.

Meanwhile, Rocketdodger has been at great lengths - in posts right next to yours - to insist that

the only rocks that switch are doped semiconductors

That's fairly clear, isn't it? Nothing in the Universe can exhibit this property of consciousness except human beings and tools made by human beings**. The only place where consciousness exists and ever can exist is where humans live.

Of course, Rocketdodger's definition of a switch actually contradicts this, but I can't help that. All I can do is point out the implications of what he says. I can't make him accept it.

But I realise that I may be unfairly characterising your opinions. Do you think that consciousness is restricted to humans* and things made by humans**? Or do you think that it's a physical phenomenon that could potentially apply anywhere?

Aku is hypothesising an actual physical field. I wouldn't go that far because I don't think we know enough. I have no idea what Nick thinks. He seems quite well read. The Pixy/Rocketdodger/Belz position seems to be that consciousness is associated with algorithms on a network of either biological or human-made switches. Feel free to correct this. I want to argue with the actual positions held, not my own version.

*Or dolphins, spiders, etc.
**Or hypothetical not yet found aliens.

 

[westprog]

So now, getting a program to contribute to this thread WOULDN'T convince you.

So, I ask again: What would ?

Something that passed the Turing test, an accompanying theory that explained how it was conscious, and an annotated code listing that demonstrated how the code implemented the theory.

So, what would it take to convince you that consciousness was not algorithmic in nature?

 

[westprog]

You don't know what inner dialogue is?

"I wonder if he knows what inner dialogue is? Surely he does... but maybe he's one of those people who never talk to themselves."

 

[PixyMisa]

Clearly the word "strewn" has a different connotation for you. Dennett does not use the term "self-reference" once.

So?

This is different, Pixy. Dennett is writing about thalamic-cortical looping and how this may be arbitrating which stream of data is conscious. I've no problem with this and have stated so on many occasions. Where I have issue is with your statement that the conscious stream must itself be self-referencing. This is not found in GWT.

Because they are building the model at a higher level.

Yes, Dennett is talking about how in GWT individual modules avoid issues with IR. You are maintaining that what makes one data stream conscious and another not is the presence of self-referencing loops.

No. I'm pointing out that "conscious streams" aren't conscious.

In GWT, the "broadcast" or "global access" state is consciousness and it is simply not related to self-reference.

There is no "broadcast" or "global access" state. This does not and cannot exist in the brain. It's a high-level model of a low-level self-referential network.

It may be switched by proto-self evaluators but it is not inherently self-referencing.

It cannot exist without self-reference.

In GWT, consciousness is the global access state, Pixy. This is likely the most fundamental precept of GWT.

There is no actual global access state, Nick. It does not exist, any more than a spherical cow of uniform density. It may be useful as a model, like the cow.

I agree. But the fact remains that what makes one stream conscious and another not is not the presence of self-referencing loops.

Neither stream is conscious.

Global access is apparently switched, by ancilliary limbic processing.

There is no global access.

We don't understand fully how this happens and whether or not a HPC exists.

No-one has ever presented a statement of HPC that was logically coherent, so we do know that it doesn't exit.

That to me is an honest and realistic statement.

Also completely wrong.

You don't know what inner dialogue is?

I know what it is. I want you to tell me precisely how you are using that particular expression.

Yes, but some signals are conscious and others are not.

No!

No signal is conscious.

This is the crux with GWT.

I don't think so; if it is, then GWT is worthless.

we don't yet know what creates the difference. But it isn't the presence of self-referencing loops in the actual stream.

The stream isn't conscious, so again, this is irrelevant.

 

[PixyMisa]

According to that definition, all atoms switch. What are rocks made of?

Fallacy of composition.

A rock expanding and contracting in the sun is a switch.

No.

It's not hard to see how that could effect any given physical system on a repeatable non-linear basis.

If you constructed such a system, then you would have a switch. The rock, by itself, does not switch.

 

[Nick227]

Which bunch of neurons processing ISN'T conscious ?

It's well known that the brain processes vast amounts of information and that a little of this processing appears to go on consciously - "in the light." The remainder appears to go on unconsciously. In the currently popular model, Global Workspace Theory (GWT), a prevailing question is thus to ask how it is that this apparent difference is manifested in material terms. Thus Blackmore asks Baars (the father of GWTs)...

Blackmore: But there still seems to be a mystery here to me, that what you're saying is that the difference between a perception that's unconscious and one that's conscious is a matter of which bit of the brain the processing is going on in. How can one bit of the brain with neurons firing in it be conscious, where another bit of the brain with very similar neurons firing in a very similar way is not? Don't we still have this explanatory gap?

Baars:There are a lot of explanatory gaps. We are in the study of consciousness where Benjamin Franklin was in the study of electricity around 1800...(Blackmore 2005)

In Pixy's model, what creates the difference would be the presence of a self-referencing loop in one of the data streams, yet to me such a notion is clearly inconsistent with what we already know of the brain and of GWT.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

No. I'm pointing out that "conscious streams" aren't conscious.

Please explain this more.

There is no "broadcast" or "global access" state. This does not and cannot exist in the brain. It's a high-level model of a low-level self-referential network.

Global access is a neuronal arrangement that allows rapid dissemination of information to a wide variety of parallel networked modules. It is the parallel networking, as I understand it. Global access is also consciousness.

It cannot exist without self-reference.

Well, you're choosing to define consciousness as being innately self-referencing. Cognitive neuroscientists working with GWTs and similar do not.

There is no actual global access state, Nick. It does not exist, any more than a spherical cow of uniform density. It may be useful as a model, like the cow.

We're just talking about a neuronal arrangement here, Pixy. How does it not exist?

Neither stream is conscious.

Can you explain this statement more? Are you saying that nothing is conscious?

I know what it is. I want you to tell me precisely how you are using that particular expression.

The phrase "inner dialogue" seems to me pretty self-explanatory. Could you tell me which bit you feel there's a problem with?

No signal is conscious.


The stream isn't conscious, so again, this is irrelevant.

Please explain what you mean here more.

Thanks

Nick

 

[westprog]

Fallacy of composition.

There is at least one switch contained in the rock. Therefore it is a switch.

Indeed, the fact that the rock is made up entirely of switches should cast doubt on the idea that it can't be a switch.

 

[westprog]

I've claimed that consciousness is only observed in humans*. I've also said that it may well be a physical phenomenon. That means that if we can really find out how consciousness works, then it might be a principle that applies throughout the universe. Or it might be applicable throughout the universe.

I admit upon reflection that I've denied consciousness to thermostats, rocks, and clouds of interstellar gas. Upon reflection I should simply say that there is at present no evidence that they exhibit consciousness, but I shouldn't rule out future discoveries.

 

[Belz...]

The word "useful" means that something is of use to a person

"Of use" ?

I've claimed that consciousness is only observed in humans.

Bolding mine.

And yet you insist that WE're trying to make it special ???

I've also said that it may well be a physical phenomenon.

Could it really be anything else ?

That's fairly clear, isn't it? Nothing in the Universe can exhibit this property of consciousness except human beings and tools made by human beings

Your reading comprehension needs some work. Dodger never said that, to my knowledge, and we seem to agree that other life forms are conscious, to a degree. You're either mistaken or making stuff up.

Of course, Rocketdodger's definition of a switch actually contradicts this, but I can't help that. All I can do is point out the implications of what he says.

Why don't you instead focus on what he ACTUALLY says ?

But I realise that I may be unfairly characterising your opinions. Do you think that consciousness is restricted to humans* and things made by humans**? Or do you think that it's a physical phenomenon that could potentially apply anywhere?

I've been arguing for the latter since I started participating in this thread. I find it hard to believe that you haven't realized that, seeing as how we've been arguing against one another for a few weeks, now.

As I said, I think it's all a question of degree of consciousness that may distinguish human from other beings. But if we accept that certain behaviors are indicative of consciousness then other animals are conscious as well. And it follows that computers can be, too. To deny that, as you have, is to say that "Nothing in the Universe can exhibit this property of consciousness except human beings" (your words).

 

[Belz...]

Something that passed the Turing test

That alone wouldn't be enough, by your own admission.

an accompanying theory that explained how it was conscious

Why ? You have agreed that only behaviour could be used to determine consciousness.

and an annotated code listing that demonstrated how the code implemented the theory.

Same question.

So, what would it take to convince you that consciousness was not algorithmic in nature?

Algorithmic ? I think you mean behavioral.

 

[Belz...]

The phrase "inner dialogue" seems to me pretty self-explanatory. Could you tell me which bit you feel there's a problem with?

I think what Pixy's going for is that "inner dialogue" is self-referential information processing.