My take on why indeed the study of consciousness may not be as simple

[Dancing David]

How and in what format does it enter your consciousness?

Now that is truly a great question, but in that sense cosciousness is the multilayed thing of awareness rather self awareness.

That is the problem with the term consciousness it has about four common meanins and usages in english.

You can be conscious of a sound but not really paying attention to it, or thinking about it. Until it stops (the sound).

 

[Dancing David]

I don't think I said anything about rabbits and dogs in this context. However, I think you'll find that rabbits and dogs do have different DNA, and that is why they are rabbits and dogs.

And we can tell digital signals from analog signals, right?

Or was that not your point?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Thanks for the encouragement Joe.
I have a B.Sc degree in Zoology and I was top of the class so I know how the nervous system works

Then why were you asking such a silly question as how many nerve cells before consciousness emerges?

The other 4 are suppressed from consciousness and processed further for depth perception.

What makes you think depth perception is not part of consciousness? What do you mean they are "suppressed"?

So does all the optic nerve information from all 8 quadrants of the retina translate to perception or only 4.

All of it is. You seem to think depth perception is not a part of consciousness.

I don't think the term "scattered" is accurate. The signal doesn't break down when it's sent to more than one location.

My take is simply this.
Science is not a justified a priori assumption.
Therefore we need an epistemology which justifies science.
The basis of this epistemology therefore cannot use the results of science.

And I've supplied that in this thread. I've pointed repeatedly to the fact that neuroscience has already shed a great deal of light on consciousness while QM has not.

If you want to turn this into one of those "science is just faith" discussions (or the argument that since the scientific method rests on a single axiom that it justifies any other nonsense as a way of knowing), you should probably start a new thread, though I suggest you read Phil Plaitt's excellent essay on the topic.

We have abundant evidence that the scientific method works.

And again, QM is a model that comes from science--the science of physics to be exact. So a criticism of the limits of science does nothing to support the idea that QM can lead to more insight into consciousness.

You may argue that so far science has done well enough without an epistemology containing no a priori assumptions. However I am convince this is the gap through which superstition pokes its head and ignoring it is counter-productive in finally putting the nail in the coffin of superstition.

Really? I'm convinced you are wrong. Superstition has not led to any insight. (The scientific study of superstition has.)

 

[rocketdodger]

That's what's needed in science. More grokking.

Yeah, I am sure that after a professional scientist has been over a proof thousands of times they still don't grok it and they still need to go line by line like a high school student.

I have said it before, I will say it again -- if you actually worked with artificial intelligence, and/or your knowledge of computer science and/or neurobiology wasn't limited to what you learned in introductory classes 20 years ago at university, you would see things that you don't see now. Things that are very clear to people like myself, and Pixy, and Paul, and Cyborg, and many others, because we do this stuff for a living and our knowledge is current rather than obsolete.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Evasion noted, you could open the discussion and answer the question.

If you think I have evaded a question, please ask it yourself. I don't even read Pixy's posts anymore so I don't know what you think I am evading.

 

[westprog]

And we can tell digital signals from analog signals, right?

No, because

• any digital signal is also an analogue signal
• any analogue signal can be used as a digital signal
• the only way to tell them apart is by the use we make of them

So, for example, if you feed a DSL signal down an ethernet cable, that will register as analogue noise - because the usage is wrong. It is not a digital signal in that context because it is unusable.

Or was that not your point?

And we can tell rabbits and dogs apart because of their inherent characteristics. A rabbit doesn't become a dog when we put a lead on it.

 

[cyborg]

No, because
[snip]

By definition a signal is not noise - so this neatly invalidates your point.

 

[westprog]

By definition a signal is not noise - so this neatly invalidates your point.

Fine, play with words.

Meanwhile, there is no way to tell a digital signal apart from usage.

 

[rocketdodger]

Fine, play with words.

Meanwhile, there is no way to tell a digital signal apart from usage.

How do we tell the DNA of a rabbit apart from the DNA of a dog?

 

[Dancing David]

If you think I have evaded a question, please ask it yourself. I don't even read Pixy's posts anymore so I don't know what you think I am evading.

I asked earlier in the thread, why would QM be important to conscioisness?

 

[westprog]

Yeah, I am sure that after a professional scientist has been over a proof thousands of times they still don't grok it and they still need to go line by line like a high school student.

Going through it line by line is exactly what a professional scientist will do before putting forward a hypothesis.

I have said it before, I will say it again -- if you actually worked with artificial intelligence, and/or your knowledge of computer science and/or neurobiology wasn't limited to what you learned in introductory classes 20 years ago at university, you would see things that you don't see now. Things that are very clear to people like myself, and Pixy, and Paul, and Cyborg, and many others, because we do this stuff for a living and our knowledge is current rather than obsolete.

Back 20 or 30 years ago, AI was eager and optimistic and Hal 9000 was just around the corner. Now its achievements lie in video games and washing machine controllers. Programs that can carry on a conversation better than ELIZA?

So the fact that people who work in AI think that their programs are conscious means as much to me as a farmer talking to his pigs. They have no particular insight.

The people working in neural science are amassing a good body of data, but none of it adds up to a meaningful theory yet.

 

[Dancing David]

No, because

• any digital signal is also an analogue signal
• any analogue signal can be used as a digital signal
• the only way to tell them apart is by the use we make of them

And so... the encoding is different yes, and of course it is the use that makes them different.

But it is possible to distinguish between data encoded for digital or analog. Just as the media is the same for rabbit DnA and dog DnA. The chemicals are the same in a maple tree leaf as they are in an oak leaf.

So, for example, if you feed a DSL signal down an ethernet cable, that will register as analogue noise - because the usage is wrong. It is not a digital signal in that context because it is unusable.

DUH, but you are making a strange analogy, it can be read by the DSL system.

Just as an RF signal could be read by an RF convertor.

Those are physical encodings. They are not encodings in meta-space they are physical.

The fact that they use the same media is analogous to DnA and the difference between a maple tree and an oak tree.

Physically they are indistinguishable, by your argument.

And we can tell rabbits and dogs apart because of their inherent characteristics. A rabbit doesn't become a dog when we put a lead on it.

And a DSL signal does not walk on an anolog leash.

You can tell a digital signal from an analog signal from its inherent characteristics.

Unless you want to tell me that a person could not take a signal and tell the difference?

 

[Dancing David]

Fine, play with words.

Meanwhile, there is no way to tell a digital signal apart from usage.

Really? Are you sure?

What makes you think that, we can take this to Computers and the Internet and ask the boffos there if you want.

ETA: add link.

 

[rocketdodger]

Going through it line by line is exactly what a professional scientist will do before putting forward a hypothesis.

I am not talking about "putting forward a hypothesis."

I am talking about, during the daily tasks, not being stumped by the problem you and all the other computational model opponents seem to be unable to grasp the solution to. This "I just can't figure out what computation is and how it could give rise to something like my consciousness."

See, people like me aren't stumped by that anymore. We know. We already have the answer, we aren't troubled by that first hurdle anymore, and we are working on actually implementing what we have already figured out.

Thats what grok means -- when you understand something to the point of it being intuitive.

 

[westprog]

How do we tell the DNA of a rabbit apart from the DNA of a dog?

Give a scientist a sample of DNA and ask him to test if it's from a rabbit or a dog, and he can do it. There are specific characteristics that differentiate one from another.

Ask a scientist to look at a signal and say if it's digital or analogue and not only can't he do it, the question isn't even meaningful. That is because there are no specific characteristics that differentiate a digital signal except usage.

It is of course possible to identify a given signal as being a particular type of digital signal - but it's not possible to look at any signal and say that it cannot be carrying digital information.

I find it very odd that this discussion jumps into analogy at every opportunity.

 

[!Kaggen]

What makes you think depth perception is not part of consciousness? What do you mean they are "suppressed"?

We use depth perception of course, but are we aware of it like we are aware of our thoughts? Unconscious.

 

[!Kaggen]

I don't think the term "scattered" is accurate. The signal doesn't break down when it's sent to more than one location.

Who said anything about breaking down more like dispersed.

 

[!Kaggen]

And I've supplied that in this thread. I've pointed repeatedly to the fact that neuroscience has already shed a great deal of light on consciousness while QM has not.

What this got to do with my argument?

 

[!Kaggen]

If you want to turn this into one of those "science is just faith" discussions (or the argument that since the scientific method rests on a single axiom that it justifies any other nonsense as a way of knowing), you should probably start a new thread, though I suggest you read Phil Plaitt's excellent essay on the topic.

Do you think that those that resort to the discussions you mention above will have anything to discuss if it can be shown to them that science rests upon a Theory of Knowledge which they cannot refute?

 

[!Kaggen]

We have abundant evidence that the scientific method works.

Why are you telling me this?

You may argue that so far science has done well enough without an epistemology containing no a priori assumptions.