The Hard Problem of Gravity

[AkuManiMani]

I think where I'm getting caught up is over the word "experience." Do you mean that there is something that is experiencing? I mean at a level below that of the whole organism.

Nick

Not necessarily. I'm saying that a specialized portion of the mind is conscious, at a specific range of states, and individual sense impressions/elements within this context collectively make up what we call "experience".

Remember the scheme I proposed yesterday?

(Organismic Mind (Neural Mind (Conscious Mind )))

Consciousness would be a state function of what I've dubbed the CM [or what you might call the brain's global workspace]. During periods of un-lucidity, mental activity of sorts still goes on but its below the functional threshold that we call 'consciousness'. Simply put, consciousness is a physical state and 'experiences' are perturbations in this state.

 

[Dancing David]

It's not a matter of semantics. It's that you are unable to define in any precise way what you mean by information processing. Rocketdodger had a go. He said "snowflake". One might find that inadequate, but at least he's having a go.

Um, hmm, weelll, um, you got some stuff see and maybe it takes some sort of sense projections and um...well, I have said i am considering and it has become a ponder.

 

[Dancing David]

I'm saying that conscious experience is a state function of the mind.

Pretty close, I agree if you say that it is justa label applied to sepearte straems of events.

But state funtion, shew, that is hard one.

You see I had this colonoscopy this year and they like gave me a powerful sedative and I woke up a couple of times. And then had some almost lucid moments in recovery.

So the state was not truly the normal 'state' of consciousness but the function was there. So i skip that states and go with processes.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Pretty close, I agree if you say that it is justa label applied to sepearte straems of events.

But state funtion, shew, that is hard one.

You see I had this colonoscopy this year and they like gave me a powerful sedative and I woke up a couple of times. And then had some almost lucid moments in recovery.

So the state was not truly the normal 'state' of consciousness but the function was there. So i skip that states and go with processes.

Indeed. Keylime pie can really eff your guts up.

 

[PixyMisa]

So, in the sense of the term "think" used by Hofstadter, you would be happy to state that SHRDLU thinks?

I think so.

I haven't seen a precise definition of this usage of "think", but yes, I'd say that SHRDLU thinks.

 

[westprog]

Um, hmm, weelll, um, you got some stuff see and maybe it takes some sort of sense projections and um...well, I have said i am considering and it has become a ponder.

I'm not trying to be obscure or difficult for the sake of it here. I think that the lack of a precise, scientific, physical definition of information processing/computing is extremely important.

There is certainly a very good mathematical definition of computing - but for that definition to be carried into the real world, there seems to be work to be done. Unless there is some solid definition out there that has yet to surface.

 

[PixyMisa]

Information theory, Westprog. It's an entire branch of science devoted to this definiton you keep claiming doesn't exist.

 

[dlorde]

...All entities are processes and their objecthood is a measure of the degree of their overall habituation. An entity's particular pattern(s) of habituation determine its properties as an object. It is pattern of habituation thru time/space that allows entities to be distinguished from the background of their surroundings and labeled, as such.

Habituation is the name for a decrease in responsiveness on repeated exposure to a stimulus - is this really what you meant? Because I can't parse your use of it in this context. Please clarify what you mean by habituation here.

 

[westprog]

Information theory, Westprog. It's an entire branch of science devoted to this definiton you keep claiming doesn't exist.

I suggest a look at the mathematical theory of information processing, and the physical theory of information, and see in what ways they are entirely different. The physical theory has nothing to say about what a computer does, any more than any other element of the universe.

They are so different that I mistakenly said that there was no physical theory of information, and that information was physical meaningless. I was wrong about that, but not in any way that helps the Strong AI viewpoint.

 

[Nick227]

Not necessarily. I'm saying that a specialized portion of the mind is conscious, at a specific range of states, and individual sense impressions/elements within this context collectively make up what we call "experience".

Would this translate into a "specialised portion of the brain?"

Nick

 

[Belz...]

It's not a matter of semantics. It's that you are unable to define in any precise way what you mean by information processing. Rocketdodger had a go. He said "snowflake". One might find that inadequate, but at least he's having a go.

You clearly have no idea what's being discussed, here.

 

[Belz...]

So what if they aren't using the term?

Just like cosmologists don't use "chicken" instead of "star".

Its just a label for a class of phenomena. Just because some don't choose to use the term doesn't mean that the process it refers to isn't real.

Indeed, though I'm still waiting for evidence that it's real.

Because its possible not to feel temperature.

And ? What does that prove ? That the information doesn't get to you. It's still cold.

By merely talking about phonemes you're creating phonemes in reference to phonemes. You've hit a dead end on this one, try another route.

Huh ?? Do you even know what a phoneme is ? It's a unit of sound.

I wasn't aware that philosophy was a person.

And this is one of the many reasons why you can't grasp the nature of consciousness. I say "doesn't care" and suddenly you think I mean it has a mind.

You're simply quibbling over the term. You can't prove the the concept is 'incoherent' because the term is in reference to a class of vertical phenomena.

Interesting. What phenomena would that be ?

You claimed that there are no intermediate steps and equated the temperature as being identical to the sensation of it being cold. However you want to phrase it, the statement was dead wrong.

Claims won't get you anywhere.

This is all just a fancy metaphysical way of restating the equivalence of matter and energy. Energy is change [or potential change] and objects are habituated patterns of energy. Matter is just a class of objects composed of atoms. Thoughts and ideas are another class of objects which just happen to not be composed of atoms.

What's a "running" made of ?

'Qualia' is just a label -- a term -- for the sense datum that make up our conscious observations.

Does a camera have qualia ?

The fact is, you're going thru the ridiculous effort to falsify the concept on the grounds that it cannot be observed when the concept is in reference TO observation.

So it's circular, now ?

You're just mindlessly attacking on the basis of fluff [in this case, a choice of labels] and confusing it with a dispute of substance. Get off it, Belz, this is becoming embarrassing. -_-

Embarassing for you, perhaps. The fact that you've now hidden behind the unfalsifiability of qualia, something you guys claimed was scientific, is hilarious.

Maybe, but its still true

Okay, then.

Aku: "I don't like the idea that consciousness can be replicated in computers with present-day knowledge because it would mean that the human 'mind' was just an illusion and that my feeling of being special compared to rocks is wrong. It makes me weep at night."

Because that isn't the concept being discussed, obviously

That's funny, because it sounds like it, to me.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Habituation is the name for a decrease in responsiveness on repeated exposure to a stimulus - is this really what you meant? Because I can't parse your use of it in this context. Please clarify what you mean by habituation here.

Sorry for the confusion, I should be more clear in my use of terms >_<

ha⋅bit⋅u⋅ate
  /həˈbɪtʃuˌeɪt/ [huh-bich-oo-eyt] verb, -at⋅ed, -at⋅ing.

–verb (used with object)
1. to accustom (a person, the mind, etc.), as to a particular situation: Wealth habituated him to luxury.
2. Archaic. to frequent.

–verb (used without object)
3. to cause habituation, physiologically or psychologically.

Origin:
1520–30; < LL habituātus conditioned, constituted, (ptp. of habituāre), equiv. to habitu(s) habit 1 + -ātus -ate 1

Synonyms:
1. familiarize, acclimate, train.

I'm using the term 'habituation' in a sense more in line with it's archaic usage [as in frequency of activity or persistent condition] not so much in the sense of being acclimated. Atoms, and things made of atoms, appear as stable objects to us because they are relatively stable patterns of activity. I figured the term 'habituation' would be a good label for such persistent patterns of activity. Again, sorry for the confusion

 

[Dancing David]

Would this translate into a "specialised portion of the brain?"

Nick

Not really Nick, the process are scattered throughout the brain. Some like language formation and modeling are very specific, some like visual processesing cover very large areas.

 

[Dancing David]

Sorry for the confusion, I should be more clear in my use of terms >_<



I'm using the term 'habituation' in a sense more in line with it's archaic usage [as in frequency of activity or persistent condition] not so much in the sense of being acclimated. Atoms, and things made of atoms, appear as stable objects to us because they are relatively stable patterns of activity. I figured the term 'habituation' would be a good label for such persistent patterns of activity. Again, sorry for the confusion

But you are chasing your tail there, take memory which I think is the strongest process that leads to confaltion with 'self', there are popel who are very capable in caring for themselves, but they make no new memories. They eat , cook, clean, go shopping. But they can not make new memories. They have a lot of their old memories and they can remember the habits of self care.

But they only remember how to get to where they are used to living, if you were to move them to a new house, they would not be able to get there.

(Now it is rather interesting how they develop skills to cope with this.)

So what sort of 'self' are they?

A self that is limied in time to the memory of who they used to be?

That is why the only coherent idea of a self will begin to revolve around the idea of a body and it's not exactly persistent identity as projected by social and cultural norms.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Just like cosmologists don't use "chicken" instead of "star".

Chicken refers to a completely different class of object, so using it as a synonym for star is silly.

Qualia categorically refers to the elements that make up our conscious perceptions so the label is perfectly appropriate to use in reference to human perception

Its just a label for a class of phenomena. Just because some don't choose to use the term doesn't mean that the process it refers to isn't real.

Indeed, though I'm still waiting for evidence that it's real.

I have qualitative perceptions. You, and presumably every other participant in this discussion have qualitative perceptions. That is 'qualia'.

And ? What does that prove ? That the information doesn't get to you. It's still cold.

*blink*

Don't play the dunce, Belz, it doesn't become you. The sensation of temperature as being cold is not identical to actual temperature. Our senses could just as easily interpret temperature stimuli as being [the taste of a ham sandwich] or [the color blue] or as nothing at all. The objective state of temperature is not the same as perception OF temperature AS being some quality [in this case 'cold']. The qualitative perception of 'cold' is an example of qualia. I don't understand how you can fail to comprehend the concept -- its pretty damn simple.

Huh ?? Do you even know what a phoneme is ? It's a unit of sound.

Which we use to form our words. Your point being...?

I wasn't aware that philosophy was a person.

And this is one of the many reasons why you can't grasp the nature of consciousness. I say "doesn't care" and suddenly you think I mean it has a mind.

My point is that of course philosophy "doesn't care", its just a discipline not an individual. You stated that the concept of qualia is incoherent but then went on to argue that it only makes sense from a philosophical perspective. If a concept is incoherent, that means that it makes no sense from any perspective. The simple fact is that you're just acting like a blockhead because you don't like the label. If I had chosen another label for the concept you wouldn't even bother to dispute it.

You're simply quibbling over the term. You can't prove the the concept is 'incoherent' because the term is in reference to a class of vertical phenomena.

Interesting. What phenomena would that be ?

Your qualitative perception of information.

You claimed that there are no intermediate steps and equated the temperature as being identical to the sensation of it being cold. However you want to phrase it, the statement was dead wrong.

Claims won't get you anywhere.

Which has what to do with your statements being incorrect?

What's a "running" made of ?

A persistent pattern of locomotion generated by a critter with legs, during which, there are intervals where all limbs are not in contact with the ground or other lateral surface.

Does a camera have qualia ?

There is nothing to suggest that it has any subjective experience of anything so it seems highly unlikely.

The fact is, you're going thru the ridiculous effort to falsify the concept on the grounds that it cannot be observed when the concept is in reference TO observation.

So it's circular, now ?

No. You're just being so thickheaded right now that you don't even recognize synonymous terms when you see them.

You're just mindlessly attacking on the basis of fluff [in this case, a choice of labels] and confusing it with a dispute of substance. Get off it, Belz, this is becoming embarrassing. -_-

Embarassing for you, perhaps. The fact that you've now hidden behind the unfalsifiability of qualia, something you guys claimed was scientific, is hilarious.

You don't get it. I'm feeling embarrassed for you because you've acting like a first rate fool when I know that you've more intelligence at your disposal [atleast I hope you do -_-]. What you're doing is equivalent to disputing the reality of gravity simply on the basis of not liking the word. Here's an argument between us that could have happened if we were living a few hundred years ago:

Belzebub: "This concept of gravity is unfalsifiable and unscientific. We already have perfectly good words like 'falling'. Why invoke magical forces when its clear that what is happening is simply behaviors?"

Mani: "What are you arguing with? We're just calling this particular set of behaviors 'gravity'. There must be some scientifically understandable mechanism for what it is and how it arises. Its very obvious that there is some mediating force that results in objects being drawn toward the ground."

Belzebub: "You haven't even established that this 'gravity' you speak of is real. How is it any more useful than the behavior of falling? This 'gravity' is an incoherent concept. Stop spouting mystical nonsense."

Mani: *blink*.....*blink* "........Wow...."

Okay, then.

Aku: "I don't like the idea that consciousness can be replicated in computers with present-day knowledge because it would mean that the human 'mind' was just an illusion and that my feeling of being special compared to rocks is wrong. It makes me weep at night."

I very much believe that consciousness CAN be replicated on computers and I would be very thrilled if humans created artificial consciousness. Its just that there is currently no solid scientific understanding of it that would allow humans to create such entities at this time. I find the that fact that so many researchers in relevant fields are in denial about this to be very depressing.

Because that isn't the concept being discussed, obviously

That's funny, because it sounds like it, to me.

Of course it does. Like I said before, you simply react to appearances with little or no depth of consideration. This disappoints me because it means that you won't be able to provide any of the indepth criticism I'm looking for. I was seriously hoping that you'd be able to step it up a notch or two but you seem unable to pull your head out of you behind and truly engage me. Whatever... -_-

 

[dlorde]

I'm using the term 'habituation' in a sense more in line with it's archaic usage [as in frequency of activity or persistent condition] not so much in the sense of being acclimated. Atoms, and things made of atoms, appear as stable objects to us because they are relatively stable patterns of activity. I figured the term 'habituation' would be a good label for such persistent patterns of activity.

The archaic verbal use 'frequent' means 'visit (a place) often or habitually', i.e. 'visit frequently', so this (obscure) meaning of 'habituation' would translate to 'the act of visiting (a place) often or habitually'.

When choosing good words (or 'labels' as you call them) to describe activities, it makes sense to select words that will be reasonably familiar in that context and that actually apply in some reasonably direct way to what they are used to describe. AFAICS 'habituation' fails on both accounts. I'm still not sure what you mean by it beyond 'persistence'.

I'm only banging on about this because most of the thread is concerned with clarifying what people mean by the words they are using, and this kind of thing doesn't help at all.

 

[Almo]

Right now, DNA seems the reigning candidate as the organizing factor in contemporary biology but, after personally giving it some thought, it appears that this one doesn't cut it either. DNA itself doesn't do anything; its just a chemical string that the machinery of the cell selectively reads and translates into amino acid strings. There is nothing in the DNA molecule itself that explicitly codes for, or dictates, morphology. This is even more clear in multicellular organisms where all of the cells contain the same genes yet develop and function in radically different ways.

10 k = 5
20 k = k + 1
30 print k
40 goto 10
50 g = 6
60 g = g - 1
70 print g
80 goto 50

This code will do two completely different things, depending on whether you execute "run" or "run 50".

You're making an argument from incredulity because you lack complete understanding of how cells work.

 

[Belz...]

Chicken refers to a completely different class of object, so using it as a synonym for star is silly.

Indeed.

Qualia categorically refers to the elements that make up our conscious perceptions so the label is perfectly appropriate to use in reference to human perception

What if stars are composed of chicken ?

You're defining qualia as composing conscious perceptions but this is just like ether and the phlogiston. You need to first show that there is such a thing as a qualia.

I have qualitative perceptions. You, and presumably every other participant in this discussion have qualitative perceptions. That is 'qualia'.

Again, this sounds like a philosopher's drivel. What's a qualitative perception, and how is it different from a quantitative perception, if such a thing exists ?

The sensation of temperature as being cold is not identical to actual temperature. Our senses could just as easily interpret temperature stimuli as being [the taste of a ham sandwich] or [the color blue] or as nothing at all.

How do you know ? You touch the ice, which reacts with you skin, which is connected to neurons, which are connected to your brain, and you have a behaviour associated with that chain of events. Why do you feel it necessary to add another layer ? Because it "feels" different ?

The objective state of temperature is not the same as perception OF temperature AS being some quality [in this case 'cold']. The qualitative perception of 'cold' is an example of qualia. I don't understand how you can fail to comprehend the concept -- its pretty damn simple.

Yes, a simple claim. Now...

Which we use to form our words. Your point being...?

They don't represent anything, and they can't represent one another. You said you could have a phoneme about a phoneme. Take "A", for instance. How can you use it to represent another phoneme, since they are the most basic component of speech ?

My point is that of course philosophy "doesn't care", its just a discipline not an individual.

MY point was that philosophy is not a very useful tool to determine the mechanics of the universe. That's why it evolved into science, at one point. Centuries ago.

You stated that the concept of qualia is incoherent but then went on to argue that it only makes sense from a philosophical perspective.

Yes, because philosophy doesn't need to make sense in a real way. It has its own internal "logic".

Which has what to do with your statements being incorrect?

Er... you CLAIM that it is incorrect. So, it has everything to do with it.

A persistent pattern of locomotion generated by a critter with legs, during which, there are intervals where all limbs are not in contact with the ground or other lateral surface.

So "running" is not made of atoms, then ? What is it made of ?

There is nothing to suggest that it has any subjective experience of anything so it seems highly unlikely.

What is there to suggest that I have subjective experience, to you ?

No. You're just being so thickheaded right now that you don't even recognize synonymous terms when you see them.

Please stop trying to read my mind, again. You're very bad at it.

Are you now saying that qualia = observation ?

You don't get it. I'm feeling embarrassed for you because you've acting like a first rate fool when I know that you're more intelligence at your disposal [atleast I hope you do -_-]. What you're doing is equivalent to disputing the reality of gravity simply on the basis of not liking the word.

And AGAIN you fail to follow the conversation. Where did I say I didn't like the word ?

I very much believe that consciousness CAN be replicated on computers and I would be very thrilled if they created artificial consciousness. Its just that there is currently no solid scientific understanding of it that would allow humans to create such entities at this time. I find the that fact that so many researchers in relevant fields are in denial about this to be very depressing.

And yet THEY are the experts and you are not. Nobody seems to be insisting that such new terms, entities, physical laws or whatnot are required to explain consciousness or describe it EXCEPT the people who don't understand the field. Gee, I wonder why that is.

 

[AkuManiMani]

But you are chasing your tail there, take memory which I think is the strongest process that leads to conflation with 'self', there are people who are very capable in caring for themselves, but they make no new memories. They eat , cook, clean, go shopping. But they can not make new memories. They have a lot of their old memories and they can remember the habits of self care.

But they only remember how to get to where they are used to living, if you were to move them to a new house, they would not be able to get there.

(Now it is rather interesting how they develop skills to cope with this.)

So what sort of 'self' are they?

A self that is limied in time to the memory of who they used to be?

That is why the only coherent idea of a self will begin to revolve around the idea of a body and it's not exactly persistent identity as projected by social and cultural norms.

I think you right in that conscious memory is a big part of what allows us to generate our 'self' identity. If we aren't aware of the contiguous nature of our experiences and thoughts, from moment to moment, we'd be unable to conceive of ourselves as being.

However, I don't think that this negates the reality of 'self', per se. It just means that we have to be self-conscious to form our sense of identity. Presumably, after we die, there is no self generated and what constitutes us [mentally and bodily] simply ceases to be :-/