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

[westprog]

But the question is still open - what is it that science can't investigate that some other approach can?

Value.

 

[Dancing David]

Yes, both are reasonably well defined physical processes. The problem is to try to find a definition where they are the same physical process. Any definition of computation must include the electronic version of computing along with the pile of pebbles. It must take the human being out of the picture, if it's not to be a purely functional definition.

Hmmm, and if it is a man made device that would be silly.

All descriptions of events are based upon 'human' interpretation.

Would you elaborate?

This makes no sense to me.

You can not make a description of the biological systems of a dog and not have the 'human' interpretation.

And it must exclude all the things the person defining it doesn't want to be classified as computing.

Good luck.

I really am not getting your point.

Computation is a physical event.

ETA: As far as the exclusion rule, where does that fit into say the theory of gravity?

 

[rocketdodger]

I think that they are decent stabs at a physical definition. I dare say it would be possible to poke holes in some of them, but they seem quite well thought out.

So what is wrong with the physical definition for "computation" I gave you awhile back?

To refresh your memory:

Computation is the process of mapping a set E of external states to a set I of internal states, where |E| > |I|.

 

[Robin]

Value.

Do you care to elucidate?

What do you mean by value and by what non-scientific protocol can it be studied?

 

[Robin]

Physical processes are built from other, more primitive physical processes.

Physical is physical...

Eventually it all reduces to matter, mass, forces, etc.

So by "physical" you mean "matter, mass, forces, etc".

Incidentally, the fact that something involves physical actions does not make it a physical process.

So what is the difference between a process being built from more primitive processes and a process which involves physical actions?

So why doesn't it meet the definition.

Shopping is not something I think can be defined in physical terms.

Shopping is a process that is built from more primitive physical processes, ultimately from the actions of matter, mass, forces etc.

I don't think an overdraft has a physical meaning.

But all the processes involved can be defined in terms of primitive physical processes.

Why does it not meet the criterion for physical?

 

[Dancing David]

I told you I had not forgotten and I need to consider my actual take on the whole thing.

I think you are not able to differentiate between awareness and consciousness.

Well that is a huge part of the problem here on teh R&P forum, if they called it the Hard Problem of Awareness I doubt that it would exist. It is because people sue the common sloppy usage of 'consciousness' with all its attendant atavistics baggage that the discussion becomes as crazy as it does.

When I become aware of thoughts its after these thoughts were created by thinking. In other words, consciousness is something I am only aware of after thinking separates me/subject from my thoughts/object. I am not at this stage implying what they were before thinking only that through thinking I am aware that they are not the same thing. So we do not experience thinking as such only thoughts and thereafter we can reflect (using thinking) on the thinking that created these thoughts and the consciousness which is now aware of them. Of course we could argue that without consciousness thinking would not happen. But we can say nothing of consciousness without thinking, so any reference to pre-thinking consciousness is metaphysics.

Well a lot of this is going to come down to definitions, which is why I am a splitter, I do not classify much as thought except in general usage because there are too many components to thought.

And that gets to the real problem of the definition of consciousness, it is a rubric that glosses over the myriad of processes that support it.

“When I become aware of thoughts its after these thoughts were created by thinking.”

See that gets to my issue right away, so you have the event which can be labeled as a thought (which is a brain process) or you can refer to the chain of events and call it ‘thinking’. But if you only can be aware of it after it has occurred, and I would counter argue that you are aware of it while it is occurring, then it involves an element of recall or memory.

So part of the definition then becomes ‘Awareness of thoughts in the moment or in recall’.

Now the other issue for me is that thoughts often involve visual pictures and special representations for me, so there is more to them than just the traditional ‘thought’ of ‘verbal cognition.

“In other words, consciousness is something I am only aware of after thinking separates me/subject from my thoughts/object.”

Now this single sentence shows some great stuff!

So consciousness is awareness and you are only aware of awareness after the fact? Or there is another form of awareness that you are labeling in this fashion?

Now I again would also state that you can have awareness of thought during the thought process.

Then there is the whole statement about object/subject, which I think throws in a whole conceptual framework unannounced and untested. And as I stated I believe that one can be aware of thoughts in a holistic present moment fashion, not requiring the whole object/subject divide, although there would be forms of abstracted thought and decoupling where that would be the goal.

Now before proceeding with the rest, I should look at your response to just this. (Especially since I seem to be disagreeing with your next point.)

Now please do not think that I am dismissing your ideas I am just trying to explore this subject.

 

[westprog]

So what is wrong with the physical definition for "computation" I gave you awhile back?

To refresh your memory:

Computation is the process of mapping a set E of external states to a set I of internal states, where |E| > |I|.

That's an entirely mathematical definition.

 

[westprog]

Shopping is a process that is built from more primitive physical processes, ultimately from the actions of matter, mass, forces etc.

Uh-uh. The act of shopping might involve actual transfer of physical material, but it might just involve a conceptual exchange of rights. Try to define it in physical terms and it will evaporate from you.

That's not to say that shopping doesn't involve physical action, but delimiting what those actions might be is impossible.

But all the processes involved can be defined in terms of primitive physical processes.

Why does it not meet the criterion for physical?

Because you cannot narrow it down to anything specifically physical beyond the fact that some physical action probably needs to take place.

 

[westprog]

Do you care to elucidate?

What do you mean by value and by what non-scientific protocol can it be studied?

Science cannot assign value to anything. If the value of something is to be studied, then it has to be by non-scientific methods.

 

[westprog]

You can not make a description of the biological systems of a dog and not have the 'human' interpretation.

You can describe a dog objectively without describing the interaction with an observer which is necessary to obtain the objective properties of a dog.

The distinction between an analogue and a digital computer, if expressed precisely, will refer to the output of the computer as used by an involved observer.

 

[westprog]

ETA: As far as the exclusion rule, where does that fit into say the theory of gravity?

The people who devised the theory of gravity were quite happy for it to include everything. Newton included matter and Einstein threw in radiation as well.

I've asked the people proposing the Strong AI theory of computing whether certain objects compute, and I was told not even a little bit. So if a theory is going to work, it has to exclude what they insist doesn't do what they say computing is. They aren't my definitions.

 

[rocketdodger]

That's an entirely mathematical definition.

Huh?

How is that any more mathematical than the stuff used in physics texts?

Are you claiming that I can't use the concepts of "a system's state" or "cardinality of a set" in any physical definition? Have you ever even read a physics text? Because everything in a physics text is quite mathematical...

I honestly don't see how I could make that definition any more physical. Take any system in the universe. If that system changes internal state based on external state in non-invertible way then it is computing. How is that not physical?

 

[PixyMisa]

The people who devised the theory of gravity were quite happy for it to include everything. Newton included matter and Einstein threw in radiation as well.

I've asked the people proposing the Strong AI theory of computing whether certain objects compute, and I was told not even a little bit.

Right.

So if a theory is going to work, it has to exclude what they insist doesn't do what they say computing is.

Which it does.

They aren't my definitions.

No, but it's your problem.

 

[PixyMisa]

Incidentally, the fact that something involves physical actions does not make it a physical process.

Yes it does.

Shopping is not something I think can be defined in physical terms.

Of course it can.

I don't think an overdraft has a physical meaning.

Of course it does.

We use abstract definitions because they are easier to generalise, but everything that happens consists purely of physical processes and can be defined entirely in physical terms.

 

[PixyMisa]

That's an entirely mathematical definition.

No, it's entirely physical. It uses mathematics to express the definition. All of physics does.

 

[tsig]

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

Absolutely.

 

[tsig]

That depends if you hook them to a power supply.

You need a complete circuit for current to flow.

 

[tsig]

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!

I think that if you run your brain thru a blender you will have a better chance of understanding.

 

[tsig]

I
If computation is not physical, and consciousness arises from computation, that seems to imply that consciousness isn't physical either.

So your computer works by nonphysical processes?

 

[tsig]

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".

.

Not much computing going on in the cooling fan. Rocks are pretty inert and not many mufflers calculate.