The Hard Problem of Gravity

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Have people read the various papers by Temple Grandin? Perhaps someone has already cited them, but if not:

http://www.grandin.com/references/animal.consciousness.html

http://www.grandin.com/inc/visual.thinking.html

http://www.grandin.com/welfare/animals.people.autism.true.consciousness.html


~~ Paul

 

[rocketdodger]

In other areas of consciousness research (AI aside) it is not defined like this. The word "consciousness" does not simply denote "self-referential information processing." Awareness of self is an aspect of consciousness, but not the whole of it. See for example Random House Dict definition...



Of course, it's easier to deal with something when the definition is tight and fixed, just as it is easier to make statements about the nature of consciousness in a machine than it is in a human.

Nick

My bad, I thought you were talking about "self referential."

 

[PixyMisa]

In other areas of consciousness research (AI aside) it is not defined like this. The word "consciousness" does not simply denote "self-referential information processing." Awareness of self is an aspect of consciousness, but not the whole of it. See for example Random House Dict definition...

1. the state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.
2. the thoughts and feelings, collectively, of an individual or of an aggregate of people: the moral consciousness of a nation.
3. full activity of the mind and senses, as in waking life: to regain consciousness after fainting.
4. awareness of something for what it is; internal knowledge: consciousness of wrongdoing.
5. concern, interest, or acute awareness: class consciousness.
6. the mental activity of which a person is aware as contrasted with unconscious mental processes.
7. Philosophy. the mind or the mental faculties as characterized by thought, feelings, and volition.

1 is explicitly self-referential
2, 3, 4 and 5 are not relevant
6 is explicitly self-referential
7 is waffle

Of course, it's easier to deal with something when the definition is tight and fixed, just as it is easier to make statements about the nature of consciousness in a machine than it is in a human.

If you define your terms, you tend not to wander off into nonsense. Whoda thunk?

 

[westprog]

On the contrary, that is how all of mathematics and computer science define it.

You are in the minority here sir.

The claims for mathematics and computer science are ludicrously overblown. Mathematics has nothing to say about consciousness per se. The vast majority of computer science has nothing to do with it either.

 

[Belz...]

But why do the intelligent agents choose the way they do?

Turtles, Paul. Turtles.

 

[Nick227]

1 is explicitly self-referential
2, 3, 4 and 5 are not relevant
6 is explicitly self-referential
7 is waffle

6 is not explicitly self-referential. This is where you completely jump over the whole HPC so unaware you do not realise you are doing so. You do it over and over again, like it's a party trick and try to convince others this is awareness. It's not.

It's the same question...why is it so light in here? When there is also unconscious processing, what actually creates the difference that this is going on in the light? Simply saying self-reference is meaningless. Other processing references itself.

The body has myriad processes running. A few carry on "in the light," in the light of awareness. The rest go on in apparent darkness. There is no actual one that is aware. But there is awareness of some processes. How come? This is the guts of the HPC and you just jump over it with simplistic answers you can't expand upon.

Nick

 

[rocketdodger]

The claims for mathematics and computer science are ludicrously overblown. Mathematics has nothing to say about consciousness per se. The vast majority of computer science has nothing to do with it either.

Yeah I was mistaken -- I thought he was talking about the definition of "self referential" again, not consciousness.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Can you source that notion?

Are you saying that without directed attention there can be no consciousness?

Source what notion? 40 Hz event related potentials are associated with awareness of a stimulus. Can you define awareness without recourse to attention.

Attention is always directed in some sense. It is always attention to, not just attention. Same for awareness -- it is awareness of. intentionality os built into our structure and it is an integral part of consciousness whether you want to call it phenomenality or what have you.

 

[Nick227]

Source what notion? 40 Hz event related potentials are associated with awareness of a stimulus. Can you define awareness without recourse to attention.

I was just interested to read more. Because for me I can consciously attend to something and also just be present without being aware I am consciously trying to. At least this is how it seems. It also seems to me different for other senses than visual and likewise for subjective senses of inner speech and feeling. With the latter there appears to be an unconscious force which causes an identification with the thought or feeling. This is not the result of consciously attenting to the inner world.

Attention is always directed in some sense. It is always attention to, not just attention. Same for awareness -- it is awareness of. intentionality os built into our structure and it is an integral part of consciousness whether you want to call it phenomenality or what have you.

I agree. Likewise thinking. There is always a subject. But when you wrote that this global access state is attention I was interested to hear more...do you mean it is the result of attention, or that it simply is attention.

Nick

 

[cyborg]

Have people read the various papers by Temple Grandin? Perhaps someone has already cited them, but if not:

http://www.grandin.com/references/animal.consciousness.html

http://www.grandin.com/inc/visual.thinking.html

http://www.grandin.com/welfare/animals.people.autism.true.consciousness.html

~~ Paul

Good articles that I think highlight the reasons for those of us who favour the computational explanation of consciousness.

 

[westprog]

Closing summary

Everyone appears to have run out of steam on this topic for the time being, so I thought I'd summarise. This is not an objective appreciation of everyone's point of view - it's my summary of my own answers to some of the points made.

First - the nature of consciousness. I don't agree that it's behavioural. It might be surmised from behaviour, but it is not, in itself, behaviour. Its primary evidence - indeed, its only real evidence - is each individual's own consciousness. The fact that each individual asserts and attempts to communicate his own consciousness leads to the belief that ones own consciousness is not a unique phenomenon.

But take away each individual's sense of consciousness, and his assertion of it, and there's very little need to consider the phenomenon at all. We might find evidence of intelligence, or of computation - but would we be discussing consciousness at all were it not for our experience of it? I doubt that very much.

Is consciousness real, or is it an illusion? The very idea seems to me confused. An illusion implies a conscious person to be deceived. Our consciousness might well be deceiving us as to the nature of what we perceive. How can it be deceiving us as to the actual fact of perception? Could we use an optical illusion to fool a blind man into thinking he could see? No, the very fact of perception indicates that a conscious being exists, whatever is perceived.

If consciousness is real, what is it? See next post.

 

[PixyMisa]

No.

 

[westprog]

Closing Summary 2

If the reality of consciousness is accepted - and already that's a step to far for some - then the question is - how is it created?

Investigation has so far at least shown that it is strongly tied to the operation of the brain. It's been shown that consciousness can be switched on and off, and affected in various ways by simple interference with the brain function. Thus it can be assumed to be either physical in nature, or at the least deeply embedded in the physical world.

Thus any theory that explains how consciousness arises must be a physical theory. It should, in principle, be possible to trace the precise physical activities that bring it about. However, it has not yet been possible to trace exactly what it is that happens in the brain which is associated with consciousness.

The most popular theory is that consciousness is computational in nature, and that it involves switches. The issue then becomes, what is a switch, and what is computation? And there is where the lack of a physical theory becomes evident. It isn't that there is an absence of switches outside the brain - it's that nature provides too many of them. Indeed, the existence of a vast variety of periodic, triggered phenomena indicates that there are an unlimited number of networks of switches. If they create consciousness, then everything is conscious, from planets to quarks.

Computation is an even more problematic concept. If we use the informational view of physical processes, then an almost limitless number of computations are taking place in the universe at every scale. What distinguishes the ones we create?

 

[PixyMisa]

If the reality of consciousness is accepted - and already that's a step to far for some - then the question is - how is it created?

Investigation has so far at least shown that it is strongly tied to the operation of the brain. It's been shown that consciousness can be switched on and off, and affected in various ways by simple interference with the brain function. Thus it can be assumed to be either physical in nature, or at the least deeply embedded in the physical world.

Thus any theory that explains how consciousness arises must be a physical theory. It should, in principle, be possible to trace the precise physical activities that bring it about.

Yes.

However, it has not yet been possible to trace exactly what it is that happens in the brain which is associated with consciousness.

Wrong. It's not that it's not possible, it's just that it's not yet complete in every detail.

The most popular theory is that consciousness is computational in nature, and that it involves switches.

Yes.

The issue then becomes, what is a switch, and what is computation? And there is where the lack of a physical theory becomes evident. It isn't that there is an absence of switches outside the brain - it's that nature provides too many of them. Indeed, the existence of a vast variety of periodic, triggered phenomena indicates that there are an unlimited number of networks of switches. If they create consciousness, then everything is conscious, from planets to quarks.

Completely wrong in every respect.

Computation is an even more problematic concept. If we use the informational view of physical processes, then an almost limitless number of computations are taking place in the universe at every scale. What distinguishes the ones we create?

Question, Westprog:

If you take a couple of million transistors, diodes, resistors and capacitors, and a few hundred miles of wire, and just dump them all on the floor, do you get a working computer?

Why or why not?

 

[rocketdodger]

Question, Westprog:

If you take a couple of million transistors, diodes, resistors and capacitors, and a few hundred miles of wire, and just dump them all on the floor, do you get a working computer?

Why or why not?

lol

We never asked this before?

 

[rocketdodger]

If the reality of consciousness is accepted - and already that's a step to far for some - then the question is - how is it created?

Investigation has so far at least shown that it is strongly tied to the operation of the brain. It's been shown that consciousness can be switched on and off, and affected in various ways by simple interference with the brain function. Thus it can be assumed to be either physical in nature, or at the least deeply embedded in the physical world.

Thus any theory that explains how consciousness arises must be a physical theory. It should, in principle, be possible to trace the precise physical activities that bring it about. However, it has not yet been possible to trace exactly what it is that happens in the brain which is associated with consciousness.

The most popular theory is that consciousness is computational in nature, and that it involves switches. The issue then becomes, what is a switch, and what is computation? And there is where the lack of a physical theory becomes evident. It isn't that there is an absence of switches outside the brain - it's that nature provides too many of them. Indeed, the existence of a vast variety of periodic, triggered phenomena indicates that there are an unlimited number of networks of switches. If they create consciousness, then everything is conscious, from planets to quarks.

Computation is an even more problematic concept. If we use the informational view of physical processes, then an almost limitless number of computations are taking place in the universe at every scale. What distinguishes the ones we create?

In other words, if there is no god/magic, everything is indistinguishable mush.

This actually is quite a good closing summary -- it summarizes your superstitious theistic viewpoint nicely.

 

[westprog]

Closing Summary 3

The curious fact about the consciousness debate is that in spite of the absence of a physical theory, among the proponents of Strong AI, this doesn't seem to be even relevant. Physics is treated as a sideline to the combination of computing and philosophy.

This is so deeply ingrained that anyone pointing out that there is no physical theory of consciousness is accused of all kinds of strange evils - mysticism, dualism and irrationality. The reaction is perhaps because the truth is so obvious. There is no physical theory of consciousness, and we know this because the physicists aren't talking about it.

Why is there no physical theory? Mostly because the real-world definitions aren't tight enough. The theory of computation is in essence mathematical. Mapping a computation onto a real world process is easily done, but expressing the computation in a physical sense is another matter. It's not that computation is difficult to find in the universe - rather, it's universal. In a physical sense, the components of a computer thrown on the floor are performing computation just as much as a working machine.

And this is the paradox. The supposed materialists, trying to devise a theory that makes man nothing special, have ended up putting man right at the heart of their theory. They restrict consciousness to a tiny area of the universe. Unknown anywhere but where life exists - but then capable of being manufactured in the simplest of machines.

It is, I suppose, possible, that consciousness is a physical property which is inextricably linked to life. But we don't yet know that, and it seems a rash assumption that it cannot exist under other physical configurations.

 

[rocketdodger]

In a physical sense, the components of a computer thrown on the floor are performing computation just as much as a working machine.

Irrelevant.

There is no reference frame from which a working computer behaves the same as a pile of junk. Absolutely none.

Just like there is no reference frame from which a rock behaves like a transistor. Absolutely none.

Just like there is no reference frame from which a corpse behaves like a living human. Absolutely none.

You can play word games all you like -- it doesn't change the fact that you are wrong and that your attempts at equivalency are fallacious.

 

[PixyMisa]

The curious fact about the consciousness debate is that in spite of the absence of a physical theory

There is a physical theory, and it has been presented over a hundred times in this thread alone.

among the proponents of Strong AI, this doesn't seem to be even relevant.

Non-sequitur.

Physics is treated as a sideline to the combination of computing and philosophy.

Completely wrong. Information theory is a physical theory.

This is so deeply ingrained that anyone pointing out that there is no physical theory of consciousness is accused of all kinds of strange evils

Like being wrong.

mysticism, dualism and irrationality.

Perhaps those as well, but certainly wrong.

The reaction is perhaps because the truth is so obvious.

And wrong.

There is no physical theory of consciousness, and we know this because the physicists aren't talking about it.

You have no idea whatsoever what a physical theory is, do you? Why on Earth do you think physicists should be talking about consciousness?

The germ theory of disease is a physical theory. Evolution is a physical theory. Do physicists study these?

Why is there no physical theory?

There is. You're wrong.

Mostly because the real-world definitions aren't tight enough.

Your definitions are entirely absent. Ours work just fine.

The theory of computation is in essence mathematical.

Wrong!

Mapping a computation onto a real world process is easily done, but expressing the computation in a physical sense is another matter.

That's information theory.

It's not that computation is difficult to find in the universe - rather, it's universal.

In some senses, yes.

In a physical sense, the components of a computer thrown on the floor are performing computation just as much as a working machine.

Completely wrong in every respect.

Again, I put to you the simple question: If you take a couple of million transistors, diodes, resistors and capacitors, and a few hundred miles of wire, and just dump them all on the floor, do you get a working computer?

Why or why not?

And this is the paradox.

No. It's a series of unfounded, logically unconnected, and for the most part, flat-out factually untrue assertions.

The supposed materialists, trying to devise a theory that makes man nothing special, have ended up putting man right at the heart of their theory.

Wrong.

They restrict consciousness to a tiny area of the universe.

Wrong.

Unknown anywhere but where life exists - but then capable of being manufactured in the simplest of machines.

Consciousness is unknown anywhere except where consciousness exists. Yeah. What a surprise.

It is, I suppose, possible, that consciousness is a physical property which is inextricably linked to life.

That is completely unrelated to anything we have said.

But we don't yet know that, and it seems a rash assumption that it cannot exist under other physical configurations.

We have pointed out repeatedly that it does exist in non-living systems.

Since you have completely failed to respond to any of the other points in the argument, it is not all that surprising that you also miss the most important one.

 

[cyborg]

The supposed materialists, trying to devise a theory that makes man nothing special,

No. I could not care less about the "specialness" or not of man.

I am led to my conclusions by the facts, not by a desire for the universe to operate in a particular fashion. It is those who want to assert the "specialness" of man (for whatever desperate emotional reason, as if being special would suddenly mean all the bad things in the world cease to be bad) who are coming up with "special" things that only the "special" entities can have but can't actually say what those "special" things are or what those "special" entities are beyond asserting, "well, I'll know it when I see it!"

Sorry, I call massive piles of bullflop on this.