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

[!Kaggen]

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.

Were did I criticize science?
Why are you bringing up QM and consciousness?
I am not interested in any link between QM and consciousness.

 

[!Kaggen]

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

Huh, when did I say superstition has led to insight?
I want to get rid of superstition, what makes you think I want to promote it for gaining insight

 

[!Kaggen]

Just to be clear are you saying that everything of which we are aware is an appearance?

Might as well be, we can never know for sure.

David, I want to be sure of what you mean by appearance.
Do you mean by appearance it is the sensory, or phenomenal, aspect of existence to an observer in the Kantian sense as apposed to noumenon, or thing-in-itself ?

 

[!Kaggen]

Do you believe that the scientific consciousness of which you speak above has a history?

In which sense? There are historical impressions of what consciousness is.

But nothing exists outside the moment of the present.

Has scientific consciousness evolved(developed over time) to what it is today?
Can we say that in the pre-scientific age people were conscious in a different way than thereafter?

 

[rocketdodger]

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.

Huh? You are aware, are you not, that DNA is nothing but a polymer that features only four different subunits?

What characteristics of the polymer are different between a rabbit and a dog? Are the subunits different somehow?

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.

There are no specific characteristics that differentiate rabbit DNA from dog DNA except usage. If you think otherwise, biology is yet another area in which you might want to get current.

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.

Who cares?

It is possible to look at any signal and say that it cannot be carrying digital information that a given system can make use of. What else matters?

Just like you can only look at a given sequence of nucleotides and say they cannot be carrying information that a given cell might make use of. You can't look at an arbitrary sequence of nucleotides and say whether or not it means anything in general. Ineed, DNA is utterly meaningless without the rest of the translation/transcription system to go along with it.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

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

I've answered that already. Scientifically, there is no connection between the two problems (ETA: that I am aware of or am capable of understanding mathematically.) Philosophically, there is. In both cases there is a metaphysical problem making it difficult for science to progress, in both cases there is a big argument going on about whether it is a scientific or philosophical problem and it is the same metaphysical problem at the root of both supposedly scientific problems.

In order to see the connection between QM and consciousness you have to take a step backwards and look at the way they are both related to issues in metaphysics, epistemology and philosophy of science. It's not a direct scientific connection and never will be.

ETA: put it another way: it may just be the case that it is only possible to "see" the answer to both these conundrums simultaneously, especially if you've spent a long time thinking about both conundrums from a strictly scientific POV.

 

[rocketdodger]

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

That is your fault. When you say utterly stupid things such as "there is no physical difference between the behavior of a working computer and a pile of non-functional computer parts" we have to bring up the glaring inconsistencies in your logic. Such as the fact that while rabbits and dogs are encoded by molecules using identical physical processes, rabbits and dogs themselves are nevertheless very different. Kind of like computers and piles of non-functional parts, or digital and analog signals in a transmission medium.

 

[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.

But that is an encoded signal just as the digital transmission is an encoded signal.

By looking at the animal itself you are looking at the end result of the 'transmission' after it has been decoded.

And BTW, so far the running in the Computer and Internet forum is that yes you can tell a digital signal from an analog signal by its characteristics, So far there have only been a smattering of responses.

The pattern if high/low would be discernable in the signal compared to an analog signal. (At least that is the theory.)

 

[Dancing David]

I've answered that already. Scientifically, there is no connection between the two problems (ETA: that I am aware of or am capable of understanding mathematically.) Philosophically, there is. In both cases there is a metaphysical problem making it difficult for science to progress, in both cases there is a big argument going on about whether it is a scientific or philosophical problem and it is the same metaphysical problem at the root of both supposedly scientific problems.

In order to see the connection between QM and consciousness you have to take a step backwards and look at the way they are both related to issues in metaphysics, epistemology and philosophy of science. It's not a direct scientific connection and never will be.

ETA: put it another way: it may just be the case that it is only possible to "see" the answer to both these conundrums simultaneously, especially if you've spent a long time thinking about both conundrums from a strictly scientific POV.

I must be dense, I will ask you to explain this in another thread.

 

[Dancing David]

Has scientific consciousness evolved(developed over time) to what it is today?

Sorry that really makes no sense to me, could you elaborate?

Can we say that in the pre-scientific age people were conscious in a different way than thereafter?

No, I would not make that statement, understanding (theory) of the behavior of objects is not the same as the behavior of the objects.

Now the patterns of consciousness may have been different in that the thoughst and constructs they engaged in are likely to have been differnt.

Why do you ask?

I think they would have sensations and responses and perceptions, thoughts and feelings and memories approximately the same if not indistinguisable. But that is speculation.

 

[Dancing David]

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?

And is a moot point. Regardless of where you are headed you will end up at the same place. (Really this is another thread.)

 

[westprog]

But that is an encoded signal just as the digital transmission is an encoded signal.

By looking at the animal itself you are looking at the end result of the 'transmission' after it has been decoded.

And BTW, so far the running in the Computer and Internet forum is that yes you can tell a digital signal from an analog signal by its characteristics, So far there have only been a smattering of responses.

It's a very simple question - is there a way to tell that a given signal cannot carry digital information. I don't have to think very hard to realise that obviously if something is a signal, carrying information, then it can carry digital information, of at least one bit. It's almost trivial, once you actually think about it.

If there is no way to tell whether a signal does not carry digital information, then it necessarily follows that it's not possible to distinguish digital signals by their content. This isn't actually a particularly difficult concept to grasp. A => B =>C.

The pattern if high/low would be discernable in the signal compared to an analog signal. (At least that is the theory.)

Any analog signal will have variations, because if it doesn't it isn't a signal. Any variation is sufficient to carry digital data.

When local telephone lines were converted to use DSL, this was described as a switch to digital. Now, before that, modems were used to send data in a different - less efficient and reliable - format. Was the data sent via 9600 Baud modems any less digital than that sent by the DSL? Of course not. "Digital", to communications engineers, is just a matter of convention.

 

[westprog]

That is your fault. When you say utterly stupid things such as "there is no physical difference between the behavior of a working computer and a pile of non-functional computer parts" we have to bring up the glaring inconsistencies in your logic. Such as the fact that while rabbits and dogs are encoded by molecules using identical physical processes, rabbits and dogs themselves are nevertheless very different. Kind of like computers and piles of non-functional parts, or digital and analog signals in a transmission medium.

There is a considerable difference in trying to communicate with someone who's trying to get what you're talking about, and someone who's trying to have it not make sense.

I've repeatedly explained that in the context of some theoretical physical concept of computation, for any given definition, if it is going on in the working computer, it's going on in the pile of disconnected parts. Rocketdodger has had the opportunity to provide a definition of computation that would exclude one and include the other. He has failed to do so, and in order to cover up this failure, he's constructed an obvious straw man where Westprog can't tell the difference between a computer and a pile of parts.

I'll repeat what I've said umpteen times, knowing with reasonable certainty that the point won't be addressed - is there any well-defined physical process that is going on in the computer that isn't going on in the pile of parts?

I will also ask another question which again, I do not expect to be addressed in any meaningful way - is there a test which can be applied to a signal which will show that it does not carry digital information?

It's all very well to self-congratulate about "grokking" how Grand Theft Auto characters are as real as you and I, but in the absence of precise definitions it doesn't mean anything.

 

[westprog]

Huh? You are aware, are you not, that DNA is nothing but a polymer that features only four different subunits?

What characteristics of the polymer are different between a rabbit and a dog? Are the subunits different somehow?

Are you serious? Have you heard about DNA testing? The patterns of DNA for rabbits and dogs are different. It's possible to look at the DNA and determine whether it's from a rabbit or a dog. Don't you accept that?

There are no specific characteristics that differentiate rabbit DNA from dog DNA except usage. If you think otherwise, biology is yet another area in which you might want to get current.

Who cares?

It is possible to look at any signal and say that it cannot be carrying digital information that a given system can make use of. What else matters?

Is this how rocketdodger backs away and admits that westprog is actually right?

If the issue doesn't matter, then why pursue this simple, obvious point for so long?

Just like you can only look at a given sequence of nucleotides and say they cannot be carrying information that a given cell might make use of. You can't look at an arbitrary sequence of nucleotides and say whether or not it means anything in general. Ineed, DNA is utterly meaningless without the rest of the translation/transcription system to go along with it.

So what? This isn't in conflict with anything I've actually said. Either I'm wrong, or I'm trivially correct and it's not worth arguing about. You can't actually maintain both positions simultaneously.

 

[Dancing David]

It's a very simple question - is there a way to tell that a given signal cannot carry digital information. I don't have to think very hard to realise that obviously if something is a signal, carrying information, then it can carry digital information, of at least one bit. It's almost trivial, once you actually think about it.

If there is no way to tell whether a signal does not carry digital information, then it necessarily follows that it's not possible to distinguish digital signals by their content. This isn't actually a particularly difficult concept to grasp. A => B =>C.



Any analog signal will have variations, because if it doesn't it isn't a signal. Any variation is sufficient to carry digital data.

When local telephone lines were converted to use DSL, this was described as a switch to digital. Now, before that, modems were used to send data in a different - less efficient and reliable - format. Was the data sent via 9600 Baud modems any less digital than that sent by the DSL? Of course not. "Digital", to communications engineers, is just a matter of convention.

I will ponder this but you have moved the goal post from where we started.

A digital signal could have one bit yes, but i will review your former posts and see if that is what you said then, this eems to be unrelated speculation. I will follow the post rail as you seem to have veered away from the discussion.

Your original statemenst were about digital computers based upon analog circuits, then you stated that there was no way to discern a digital sugnal from an analog one.

Now you have moved to a special case of one bit digital signals, which seems to be special pleading.

Again, I do not think that is germane to your prior statements.

 

[rocketdodger]

I'll repeat what I've said umpteen times, knowing with reasonable certainty that the point won't be addressed - is there any well-defined physical process that is going on in the computer that isn't going on in the pile of parts?

I'll repeat what I've said umpteen times -- of course. Obviously.

If there was not, then humans wouldn't be able to build computers.

The fact that you twist any offered definition into oblivion doesn't change this. There is a well defined process. If there were not, then you would either be typing your posts on a pile of non-functional parts, or you would not be typing your posts at all.

There are no behaviors exhibited by the isolated electrons in you that are not exhibited by the isolated electrons in a rock. Is there any point to such an observation?

I will also ask another question which again, I do not expect to be addressed in any meaningful way - is there a test which can be applied to a signal which will show that it does not carry digital information?

No, there is not. Just like there is no test that can be applied to a strand of DNA that will show it does not carry information for the translation/transcription of some protein.

Again -- is there any point to such an observation?

 

[westprog]

But that is an encoded signal just as the digital transmission is an encoded signal.

By looking at the animal itself you are looking at the end result of the 'transmission' after it has been decoded.

I never denied that it's possible to encode digital information in an analogue signal. On the contrary, I claim that it's possible to encode digital information in any analogue signal.

Actually, all electronics are essentially analog. What we call digital binary is just the modification of voltages which are analog current and potential within components and traces. So, in the most fundamental sense, all digital systems are modeled from an analog one. It is just the interpretation of the signals that we deem digital.

This seems correct to me - and indeed obvious.

 

[Dancing David]

There is a considerable difference in trying to communicate with someone who's trying to get what you're talking about, and someone who's trying to have it not make sense.

I've repeatedly explained that in the context of some theoretical physical concept of computation, for any given definition, if it is going on in the working computer, it's going on in the pile of disconnected parts.

Sure Westprog you have made that fallacy before and it is still untrue. That is like saying a ground up rabbit is teh same as a live rabbit.

I am begining to believe that your goal is not communication, but just assertion/

Rocketdodger has had the opportunity to provide a definition of computation that would exclude one and include the other. He has failed to do so, and in order to cover up this failure, he's constructed an obvious straw man where Westprog can't tell the difference between a computer and a pile of parts.

the same way you tell rabbit DnA from dog DnA.

Oh snap! Treated!

I'll repeat what I've said umpteen times, knowing with reasonable certainty that the point won't be addressed - is there any well-defined physical process that is going on in the computer that isn't going on in the pile of parts?

yes the passage of current and charges in certain areas.

I will also ask another question which again, I do not expect to be addressed in any meaningful way - is there a test which can be applied to a signal which will show that it does not carry digital information?

Is there a test that can be applied to a signal to tell that is does not carry analog information.

Fair is fair. the answer is no in both cases.

It's all very well to self-congratulate about "grokking" how Grand Theft Auto characters are as real as you and I, but in the absence of precise definitions it doesn't mean anything.

Yeah, that i agree with.

But you seem to have lost the ability to engage in discussion.

 

[rocketdodger]

Are you serious? Have you heard about DNA testing? The patterns of DNA for rabbits and dogs are different. It's possible to look at the DNA and determine whether it's from a rabbit or a dog. Don't you accept that?

Are you serious? Have you heard about signal analysis? The patterns of rising and falling signal strength for different systems are ... different. It's possible to look at the signal and determine whether it's from an analog television broadcast tower or a wireless hub. Don't you accept that?

Is this how rocketdodger backs away and admits that westprog is actually right?

If the issue doesn't matter, then why pursue this simple, obvious point for so long?

You are ignoring half the issue. I am pursuing the obvious point that signals can only be differentiated via use because that is exactly how DNA is differentiated. Your argument that rabbits and dogs are different, and that their DNA is different, is equivalent to David's argument that the signals used by analog and digital systems are different.

So what? This isn't in conflict with anything I've actually said. Either I'm wrong, or I'm trivially correct and it's not worth arguing about. You can't actually maintain both positions simultaneously.

Yes, it is in conflict with what you have actually said:

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.

See?

You claim that the differences between rabbit and dog DNA are somehow fundamentally different from those of analog and digital signals because -- somehow -- they don't involve the "use" of the information.

And that is garbage -- DNA is "used" just like any other information signal. There is not any more objective difference between any two strands of DNA than there is between any two signals on any other medium.

 

[Dancing David]

I never denied that it's possible to encode digital information in an analogue signal. On the contrary, I claim that it's possible to encode digital information in any analogue signal.



.

I have no desire to engage in a pissing contest with you, you have moved the goal posts and are now making further claims that are seperate from your former claims.

Have fun, if you decide to stop peeing and begin actual discussion, I will respond to you.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5286282&postcount=174

In fact it does. There is no physical distinction between a digital and an analogue device. The difference is purely operational. A computer is a digital device because we choose to use it as such.

"The only meaning "digital" has in the real world is in terms of the interpretation we place on the information received. "

Now while you made these statements you began to add dependant clauses to get away from your original statements...
"That is the only way you can tell"
"There is no way to tell by just looking at the signal itself whether it's used to carry digital information."