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

[westprog]

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.

The digital information that can be embedded in an analogue signal is dependent on issues such as the range of possible values detectable in the signal, and the degradation of the signal, and so on. It certainly isn't limited to a single bit, but that is the minimum data that can be carried.

This is not some theoretical concept, BTW. Beacons have been used to carry yes/no information for thousands of years.

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.

My original contention was quite simple - that there was no way to distinguish between digital and non-digital signals. Digital computers are based on analogue circuits - this is an obvious and unavoidable part of computer design.

I have to keep repeating that if you wish to dispute with me, please argue on the basis of things I'm actually saying, rather than what you infer I might be implying.

 

[westprog]

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?

Why do you persist in addressing points I haven't made, and ignoring what I'm actually saying?

There is no way to look at a signal and to be able to determine that it is not carrying digital information. It is possible to look at certain signals and detect that they are carrying certain digital information encoded in a particular way.

If it is not possible to determine that a given signal is not carrying digital information, it is not possible to segregate analogue and digital signals, except by usage.

 

[quarky]

Consciousness is poorly defined.
"Will" could be a better term. There is some basic inner force that allows a command to be obeyed. We can decide to move our leg, or not, as can any animal with legs.

Whatever that force is that starts the ball rolling before we actually move the leg, is quite odd, if you think about it. Its like a guy in there that can work the machinery, but doesn't have any tools. Does that primal will have a location in the brain?
Whatever it is, its the core of consciousness, imho.

The QM connection is far-fetched, but possible.
I hypothesize that the sub-atomic realm expresses itself independently of the atomic realm, simultaneously. The same bunch of quarks that are busy being a lead atom could also be part of a different element in another perceptual possibility.

Although this is getting towards mysticism or shamanism, it also leans towards multi-dimensions or parallel universes, and isn't necessarily dis-allowed by thermodynamics.

I feel that things happen from the smallest initial input. The universe seems to have begun as a tiny item. It may still exist in its original form, as well as the one we are part of. It could be a single sub-atomic particle, being everywhere at the same time. Though this is philosophy, it is not incompatible with science. The laws don't apply to the singularity. It preceeds them.

From this angle, consciousness is in that particle, which we can command, even though we are comprised of it. We give it a home, and it serves us, through our will. What will is, imho, is best examined through deliberate quieting of thought. When its quiet, the initial impulse to re-activate thought is isolated from all the normal noise in one's mind.

There you go.

 

[PixyMisa]

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.

You realise that this means that philosophy made that connection up? That it's not real?

In both cases there is a metaphysical problem making it difficult for science to progress

Nope. Metaphysical problems are irrelevant.

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.

The argument is one sided. Science produces answers, and philsophy insists that it's not irrelevant.

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.

In other words, you have to make the connection up.

And you still haven't told us what the connection is supposed to 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.

What? We already have answers to both quantum mechanics and consciousness. From scientific research, not metaphysics. You are attempting to introduce irrelevancies to make yourself look relevant. This seldom works.

 

[rocketdodger]

Why do you persist in addressing points I haven't made, and ignoring what I'm actually saying?

There is no way to look at a signal and to be able to determine that it is not carrying digital information. It is possible to look at certain signals and detect that they are carrying certain digital information encoded in a particular way.

If it is not possible to determine that a given signal is not carrying digital information, it is not possible to segregate analogue and digital signals, except by usage.

Why do you persist in addressing points I haven't made, and ignoring what I'm actually saying?

There is no way to look at a sequence of DNA and to be able to determine that it is not carrying genetic information of some species. It is possible to look at certain sequences and detect that they are carrying certain genetic information encoded in a particular way.

If it is not possible to determine that a given sequence is not carrying genetic information for some species, it is not possible to segregate rabbit DNA and dog DNA, except by usage.

Get it yet?

 

[PixyMisa]

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?

Does a working computer behave the same as a pile of parts?

If not, then the answer has to be yes.

 

[PixyMisa]

Consciousness is poorly defined.
"Will" could be a better term. There is some basic inner force that allows a command to be obeyed. We can decide to move our leg, or not, as can any animal with legs.

Actually, no, you can't. You can only decide not to move your leg.

 

[quarky]

Actually, no, you can't. You can only decide not to move your leg.

That works just as well.
Thanks for the link. Interesting stuff.

 

[PixyMisa]

That works just as well.

For some purposes.

Thanks for the link. Interesting stuff.

Yep, that it is.

 

[Maia]

Eh. Trevenna and Miller's 2009 research showed some serious problems with Libet's underlying theories about readiness potential (leaving aside the more fundamental problem of whether or not simple movements involving the motor cortex could really be comparable in any serious way to more complex decisions.) That being said, I'm fascinated by the idea that free will can be exercised in suppressing impulses more than in consciously choosing them because of the relationship that hypothesis might have to the study of what happens when the inhibitory functions of the brain in the prefrontal cortex break down, as in traumatic brain injuries, various forms of dementias, and attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder.

 

[tsig]

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.

An oscilloscope will tell you the difference between digital and analogue at a glance.

 

[PixyMisa]

Eh. Trevenna and Miller's 2009 research showed some serious problems with Libet's underlying theories about readiness potential (leaving aside the more fundamental problem of whether or not simple movements involving the motor cortex could really be comparable in any serious way to more complex decisions.) That being said, I'm fascinated by the idea that free will can be exercised in suppressing impulses more than in consciously choosing them because of the relationship that hypothesis might have to the study of what happens when the inhibitory functions of the brain in the prefrontal cortex break down, as in traumatic brain injuries, various forms of dementias, and attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder.

Yep, even if there are some issues with Libet's work (and I think that it needs more research beyond what Trevenna and Miller have done), it does raise some very interesting questions.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Kinda like what goes on in Na and Cl also goes on in table salt ?

I know you hate analogies, but there.

 

[westprog]

An oscilloscope will tell you the difference between digital and analogue at a glance.

And you can look at a signal through an oscilliscope and guarantee that it is not carrying digital information?

 

[westprog]

There is no way to look at a sequence of DNA and to be able to determine that it is not carrying genetic information of some species. It is possible to look at certain sequences and detect that they are carrying certain genetic information encoded in a particular way.

If it is not possible to determine that a given sequence is not carrying genetic information for some species, it is not possible to segregate rabbit DNA and dog DNA, except by usage.

Get it yet?

It is, however, possible to identify DNA, if sufficient is provided, as being definitely either rabbit or dog. Without ambiguity. Certain sequences are common to both, other sequences are unique to one or the other.

It is not possible -even with a brand new oscilliscope and gold-plated leads - to look at a signal and say that it is

There is no way to look at a sequence of DNA and to be able to determine that it is not carrying genetic information of some species. It is possible to look at certain sequences and detect that they are carrying certain genetic information encoded in a particular way.

If it is not possible to determine that a given sequence is not carrying genetic information for some species, it is not possible to segregate rabbit DNA and dog DNA, except by usage.

Get it yet?

It is, however, possible to identify DNA, if sufficient is provided, as being definitely either rabbit or dog. Without ambiguity. Certain sequences are common to both, other sequences are unique to one or the other.

It is not possible -even with a brand new oscilliscope and gold-plated leads - to look at a signal and say that it is not carrying digital information.

Because this is trivially true, we need to keep diverging to different things altogether.

 

[PixyMisa]

And you can look at a signal through an oscilliscope and guarantee that it is not carrying digital information?

It's quantitative.

I can look at a signal and tell you how much information it is possible for that signal to be carrying, regardless of the choice of coding and modulation techniques.

There is no zero cutoff, though a given signal might only be capable of transmitting one bit per week.

 

[Dancing David]

The digital information that can be embedded in an analogue signal is dependent on issues such as the range of possible values detectable in the signal, and the degradation of the signal, and so on. It certainly isn't limited to a single bit, but that is the minimum data that can be carried.

This is not some theoretical concept, BTW. Beacons have been used to carry yes/no information for thousands of years.

Which (the beacons) is irrelevant to the original point.

Here was the crux, in application to the original argument and ignoring some sidebars.

It seemed that you stated that in principle a digital device could not be distinguished from an analog one. (I can cite the post if you wish) and I may have misunderstood.

Now in terms of architecture and design and 'analog' computer will be designed differently than a 'digital' computer. And from the arrangement of the parts and usage can be determined as to the style of computation.

A digital computer is called such because of the way it works (just as the DnA of a dog makes dog parts), it is also designed to process the data digitally, not in an analog fashion. regardless of what medium is uses to process the data.

Now yes common usage may lead o some strange stuff, but there is and have been analog processing computers.

Now I believe I was the one who started talking about signals. You started with devices.

My original contention was quite simple - that there was no way to distinguish between digital and non-digital signals. Digital computers are based on analogue circuits - this is an obvious and unavoidable part of computer design.

And irrelevant as Robin stated many pages back, the process is what gives the device its name, regardless of what adverts say.

You can not tell a dog from a rabbit by the same argument. Or a ground up rabbits is the same as a live one by your other sidebar.

The issue of signal and a single bit is not where this started, it may have been your end goal but it was not stated until this last segment.

I have to keep repeating that if you wish to dispute with me, please argue on the basis of things I'm actually saying, rather than what you infer I might be implying.

No you added the bit about the single pulse of code recently.

Now the other thread has come full circle as well, a simple digitized signal can be distinguished by the fact that the coding involves easy to distinguish discrete voltage states, such that an oscilloscope could easily resolve them, but more recent 'packing methods' which use more voltage levels to compress the bits (IE 8 voltage states=3 bits) then you will have more difficulty determining the levels of discrete information. Now theoretically one could determine there were 256 states (8 bit coding) but in practice it would be more difficult.


So are you still stating that by architecture we can not tell digital computing from analog computing?

 

[Dancing David]

And you can look at a signal through an oscilliscope and guarantee that it is not carrying digital information?

That is what I am saying is goal moving, we can always look at margin and single cases to destroy any theory.

The original statement was about devices.

 

[westprog]

Kinda like what goes on in Na and Cl also goes on in table salt ?

I know you hate analogies, but there.

No - crystallisation of NaCl is different to what goes on in the two different elements.

What I've been saying - and it's not my fault that I had to come back and repeat it - is that if it is claimed that computation is going on in the computer, and not in the pile of disconnected parts, and if it is also claimed that computation is a specifically physical process, and not an expression of how people use the computer, and that the result of this physical process of computation may be, if set up correctly, the creation of consciousness - then it's necessary to say what the specific physical difference is between a computer and a brain, say, and the pile of computer parts, and a car, and a box of soap, and more importantly, what the commonality is between the computer and the brain.

Obviously it's possible to tell the computer apart from the disconnected computer parts. It's also possible to tell the computer apart from the brain. I think it's up to the people claiming that a computer is more like a brain than it is like the components that make up a computer to show what the physical resemblance is.

It might be that there is some well-defined physical connection between the computer and the brain. To return to the crystal analogy - NaCl has structural similarities and behaviour similar to other crystals, which are actually dissimilar to molecular chlorine. But this commonality is well-defined physically. It is this absence of a physical description of computing that to my mind makes the Strong AI concept of consciousness as incomplete and unproven.

To return (if anyone remembers it) to the OP. Penrose is AFAIAA the only physicist of any eminence who has addressed this issue. (Pace DrKitten, he is a physicist, and he is a physicist of significance). Hence his observations on the subject have a unique resonance, even if his conclusions are unsupported.

 

[Dancing David]

It is, however, possible to identify DNA, if sufficient is provided, as being definitely either rabbit or dog. Without ambiguity. Certain sequences are common to both, other sequences are unique to one or the other.

It is not possible -even with a brand new oscilliscope and gold-plated leads - to look at a signal and say that it is not carrying digital information.

Do you notice the construction here?

Equivalence would not be what you stated at all, which therefore makes it a potential fallacy of construction.

"It is not possible -even with a brand new genetic scanner and superior analysis - to look at a signal and say that it is not carrying genetic information."