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

[Belz...]

If the power supply is plugged in it does.

Yeah but in that case it's no longer dissassembled, is it ?

 

[westprog]

Ok, another question...

I personally think that computation is a series of physical processes. EDIT: Of course we can mathematically model these physical processes, could this be why you are confused?

If you think that computation is not a physical process(or processes), does that mean that there is not a thermodynamic limitation on computing? *hint: this question is a trap!*

What I mean is that there is no physical process called "computing" whereby a physicist can look at a brain and a computer and say "I have detected computing going on here" and look at the bits of computer, or a rock, or a car, and say "No computing going on here".

Computing is a functional engineering definition which we apply to certain tools that we use. It becomes meaningful only in the use we make of it. Your cunning thermodynamic trap is not actually relevant, because it doesn't address the point I made. It's not that computing is not carried out by physical processes. It's that computing is not a physical process itself.

This is of course subject to someone coming up with a physical definition for computing. (And this means something more than mentioning semiconductor behaviour).

 

[westprog]

Yeah but in that case it's no longer dissassembled, is it ?

If the power supply is on a seperate shelf it is.

 

[rocketdodger]

I'm not familiar enough with the limits of information technology, but it seems likely that while it's possible to set the limits of a given signal's capacity wrt modulation and coding, it's very difficult to know whether it is carrying information according to some different arrangement.

How is DNA any different?

Is it not difficult to know whether DNA is carrying genetic information for some different species?

Suppose I give you a sequence of nucleotides that matches a rabbit genome 100%.

Can you say with absolute certainty that such a sequence is not also used somewhere else as a subset of some other genome? No -- you would have to exhaustively sequence every single genome in the universe to be absolutely certain.

Get it?

 

[westprog]

Isn't this damning to the argument for this "microtube consciousness" then? Clearly a sloppy bag of disconnected brain parts, if hooked up to a body, would not be able to demonstrate conscious behavior(we see this in braindead patients). Neither would a bag of computer parts hooked up to a power supply and the proper peripherals, of course, but then again, we wouldn't expect it to.

It seems like a good argument AGAINST the point that Westprog seeks to make...

Gate is still confused.

Consider the original contention of Strong AI - and if one of the proponents of it want to rephrase it then they are welcome to do so.

There is a process called "computing" which takes place in a human brain, and a computer, but not in a rock or a car or the disassembled computer.

It's my assertion that the computer is no more like a brain than it's like a rock, or a car, or itself when disassembled - and that there is no physical process going on in the computer and the brain that isn't going on in all the other objects as well, to a greater or lesser extent.

I accept that there are physical processes - such as crystallisation - which operate on a larger scale than the atomic, and are only meaningful on that larger scale - but I don't believe that it's been demonstrated that computation is in that category, much less consciousness.

And it's open to any of the Strong AI proponents to rebut this by providing a physical definition of computing that is confined to the areas where they want it. Except for DrKitten who has computing as non-physical.

 

[rocketdodger]

Of course we can look at a given signal with a given encoding scheme, and say that data is encoded in it according to that scheme. We cannot, even in that specific case, where the signal carries analogue information, state with certainty that the signal does not also carry additional digital data, except via usage.

Again... how is that any different from DNA?

I don't know what your point is here. The DNA of rabbits and dogs can be identified and distinguished. If we don't have enough of the DNA, we can't tell anything.

Lol.

Let me illustrate my point by repeating exactly what you said above, only with DNA instead of signals. Please tell me if you disagree with any of it:

Of course we can look at a given sequence with a given genome, and say that the sequence is found within that genome. We cannot, even in that specific case, where the sequence is found in that genome, state with certainty that the sequence is not found in any other genomes, except via usage.

 

[westprog]

How is DNA any different?

Is it not difficult to know whether DNA is carrying genetic information for some different species?

Suppose I give you a sequence of nucleotides that matches a rabbit genome 100%.

Can you say with absolute certainty that such a sequence is not also used somewhere else as a subset of some other genome? No -- you would have to exhaustively sequence every single genome in the universe to be absolutely certain.

Get it?

Of course I can't say whether it's used for some other purpose elsewhere. That's actually the point I have been making all along about digital signals. I* can, however, look at a rabbit nucleotide sequence and say that it's not a dog nucleotide sequence.

_{*Not "I", but some idealised "I" with equipment and knowledge sufficient to the task.}

 

[rocketdodger]

And it's open to any of the Strong AI proponents to rebut this by providing a physical definition of computing that is confined to the areas where they want it.

My rebuttal is the question of whether or not you consider life as physical or functional.

Is the difference between a bacteria and a rock physical or functional, westprog?

 

[westprog]

Again... how is that any different from DNA?

Why should it be any different from DNA?

Lol.

Let me illustrate my point by repeating exactly what you said above, only with DNA instead of signals. Please tell me if you disagree with any of it:

Of course we can look at a given sequence with a given genome, and say that the sequence is found within that genome. We cannot, even in that specific case, where the sequence is found in that genome, state with certainty that the sequence is not found in any other genomes, except via usage.

So? That's not what we were discussing. We were talking about dogs and rabbits. Now you're bringing in the entire possible universe of living creatures. That's a very different question.

 

[rocketdodger]

Of course I can't say whether it's used for some other purpose elsewhere. That's actually the point I have been making all along about digital signals. I* can, however, look at a rabbit nucleotide sequence and say that it's not a dog nucleotide sequence.

_{*Not "I", but some idealised "I" with equipment and knowledge sufficient to the task.}

And "I" can look at the signal for an analog television program and say that it is not a wireless router transmission.

Get it?

 

[Gate2501]

Consider the original contention of Strong AI - and if one of the proponents of it want to rephrase it then they are welcome to do so.

There is a process called "computing" which takes place in a human brain, and a computer, but not in a rock or a car or the disassembled computer.

It's my assertion that the computer is no more like a brain than it's like a rock, or a car, or itself when disassembled - and that there is no physical process going on in the computer and the brain that isn't going on in all the other objects as well, to a greater or lesser extent.

I accept that there are physical processes - such as crystallisation - which operate on a larger scale than the atomic, and are only meaningful on that larger scale - but I don't believe that it's been demonstrated that computation is in that category, much less consciousness.

And it's open to any of the Strong AI proponents to rebut this by providing a physical definition of computing that is confined to the areas where they want it. Except for DrKitten who has computing as non-physical.

Ok.

Computation is a series of physical events which process information.

What is wrong with my definition?

I don't think that brains and computers are much different from rocks, cars, or bird crap for that matter. The only difference is the level of organization and complexity present, explicitly designed(by the physical process of evolution, or some guys at Intel), to process information.

It seems to me like you are on the same side of the argument as the Strong AI folks, you just don't know it!

 

[rocketdodger]

Why should it be any different from DNA?



So? That's not what we were discussing. We were talking about dogs and rabbits. Now you're bringing in the entire possible universe of living creatures. That's a very different question.

Is there a physical difference between the DNA of a rabbit and the DNA of a dog that is somehow fundamentally different from the physical difference between an analog and digital signal?

Yes or no?

 

[westprog]

And "I" can look at the signal for an analog television program and say that it is not a wireless router transmission.

Get it?

But you cannot look at the signal for an analog television program and say that it is not carrying any digital information. You know this is the case, so why are you persisting with endless side issues?

 

[Dancing David]

But that is usage - which is how I said we can make the distinction.

And it is the usage of the DNA that makes a rabbit different from a dog...

 

[Dancing David]

Westprog:

Of course I can't say whether it's used for some other purpose elsewhere. That's actually the point I have been making all along about genetic signals. I* can, however, look at a [/i]digital computer's architechture[/i] and say that it's not a analog computer's architechture.

_{*Not "I", but some idealised "I" with equipment and knowledge sufficient to the task.}

 

[Dancing David]

But you cannot look at the signal for an analog television program and say that it is not carrying any digital information. You know this is the case, so why are you persisting with endless side issues?

Because it will eventually get back to AI, consciousness, and the silly claims made by Penrose.

I know why I am discussing this.

 

[Dancing David]

Alright.

I have been lurking in this thread for some time, and there is something that I don't quite understand...

What on earth is the relevance of the computer vs. a pile of computer parts?

How is this any different than a brain vs. a sloppy bag of brain parts?

Please. Enlighten me!

Well it has the preamble on page three but it starts here.

 

[rocketdodger]

But you cannot look at the signal for an analog television program and say that it is not carrying any digital information. You know this is the case, so why are you persisting with endless side issues?

Yes, of course that is the case.

But the rabbit vs. dog thing is not an "endless side issue." It is the primary issue.

Because you, for over a year, have been avoiding the important questions -- such as "in what ways are rabbits and dogs different?" -- and focusing on the utterly stupid trivially obvious truths, such as "there is no physical process going on in a rabbit that is also not going on in a dog."

Which is stupid. It is just plain stupid because there are clearly many differences between rabbits and dogs. There are many physical differences, by any possible definition of the word "physical." The fact that you can't wrap your head around this "but.. but... there aren't any physical processes that are going on in one that can't be found in the other" just means that for some bizarre reason you refuse to accept that physical differences might manifest themselves on levels higher than those of the individual particle behaviors.

It has been the same pattern all along with you. Rocks vs. thermostats, rocks vs. bacteria, piles of parts vs. computers, bowls of soup vs. computers -- all of these things are clearly different from each other and nobody but yourself cares that the particles of each all display the same fundamental behavior individually because everyone else is intelligent enough to realize that behavior isn't restricted to the realm of individual particles.

The rabbit vs. dog thing is just the most glaring example of your general confusion, and that is why I am focusing on it.

Get it?

 

[westprog]

Is there a physical difference between the DNA of a rabbit and the DNA of a dog that is somehow fundamentally different from the physical difference between an analog and digital signal?

Yes or no?

Firstly you don't need to shout.

You aren't even close to comparing like with like. The DNA of a rabbit is physically different to the DNA of a dog, and they can be told apart, given a sufficiently large sample.

A digital signal is an analogue signal, so how can they be told apart? A dog is not a rabbit. Please refine your analogy so it's possible to pick some kind of meaning out of it.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Who said anything about breaking down more like dispersed.

The meaning of "scattered" and "dispersed" when talking about signal transmission includes loss of signal. I don't think that's what you meant. (Just that an incoming signal can be routed to several locations.)

What this got to do with my argument?

I have no idea what your argument is. I was addressing the topic of this thread--the idea that using QM might be the way to learn more about consciousness. While I was making a case that QM is not the way to learn more about consciousness, you began asking me silly questions. (Such as, how many nerve cells before consciousness emerges.)

So silly me, trying to steer the conversation back to the thread 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?

Again, I suggest if this is something you wish to discuss you should start another thread on that topic. (Or resurrect a dead one. It's been discussed again and again here.) But it's not on-topic for this thread.

I am not interested in any link between QM and consciousness.

Then why are you posting on this thread?