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

[!Kaggen]

We as conscious minds talk about not meaningful as if it "is" something meaningful to have no meaning and saying which has no content but was said.

And?

You do not think it is an interesting logical fallacy which we take for granted in everyday speech?

No , but I have yet to understand a proof whilst unconscious.

And what is the connection, exactly, between consciousness and unconsciousness?

Thinking, as described in my last post to David.

 

[PixyMisa]

You do not think it is an interesting logical fallacy which we take for granted in everyday speech?

What logical fallacy?

Thinking, as described in my last post to David.

Please elucidate.

 

[Belz...]

But then you don't have a working computer, do ya ?

Westprog ?

Do you or do you not have a working computer unless you attach the computer parts together and get the computer going ?

 

[Belz...]

No , but I have yet to understand a proof whilst unconscious.

Don't be so sure. Lots of things happen in your mind unconsciously, even rational things.

 

[westprog]

What's an analogue process?

Almost anything one can imagine.

 

[westprog]

Westprog ?

Do you or do you not have a working computer unless you attach the computer parts together and get the computer going ?

What do you mean by "working computer"? If you mean, is the computer usable by a human being - obviously not.

If you mean - there is some process going on in the working computer that is not going on until it's connected, then you'll need to specify what process you mean. If you also are claiming that it's the same process going on in a conscious human brain, you'll need to be precise.

 

[westprog]

Look it up.

Yes, because entering "physical definition of computing" into Google will give loads of results, won't it?

Not quite a googlewhack but nearly.

 

[PixyMisa]

Almost anything one can imagine.

What isn't an analogue process, then, and what's the difference?

 

[PixyMisa]

Yes, because entering "physical definition of computing" into Google will give loads of results, won't it?

Not quite a googlewhack but nearly.

Sometimes, even now, you have to do more than cut and paste a misguided phrase into the search box.

Try computation instead of computing. And since computation is the manipulation of information, a good place to start is here.

Read it. Follow the links, and read those. And so on.

Once you grasp something - anything at all - of the subject you are arguing about, you can return and we can continue.

 

[!Kaggen]

Some grammer corrections and additions to my last post

Hi David

You have brought up a lot of questions regarding what I mean by certain things.
I have tried to summarize my argument again below concentrating on clarifying your questions.
I hope I have covered most of them and I am sure you will let me know what I have not covered.

Well, yes. My thinking as to why this is the case is similar to the reasons given by many non-western philosophy's as to the problem of consciousness, the "noisy" mind.



Starting out with the premise that consciousness is a reality and can therefore be be observed I have consciously been trying to refer to the most basic manifestation of the observation of consciousness using the definition , aware of ones thought .

How do I come to this definition?

Identifying first the most basic manifestation of an observation is an important principal of any scientific investigation.
In this case if we examined our own consciousness we could identify basic starting points for a scientific investigation.
As far as our own consciousness is concerned we can minimize perception (sensory input and all its related nerve functions to a minimum) by consciously removing that which would not be necessary from our minds and environment till the brink of becoming unconscious.
This is commonly known as "meditation", but I personally do not like this term as it has too much baggage.
Another useful exercise is to examine one's state of mind in the last moments before falling asleep and in the first moments of awakening.
It is important to note again I am only referring to perceptions of which we are aware.
What I have found by doing these things is that we can most easily reduce external sensory information.
Then if we want to reduce internal sensory information resulting from our body this involves more effort.
Of course having an illness or injury makes this part even more difficult if not impossible. So I will assume a healthy person.
My experience has been that immediately after balanced physical exercises (not too much not too little) in which one participates fully with delight one can get a feeling which many people would describe as "I feel great".
This really means they are not aware of there bodies being under the influence by gravity and any of the related aches and pains resulting therefrom.
They feel light, young and supple.
This is also an interesting observation as regards the consciousness of a child, but that is another story.
Yoga for instance is designed to get the body into this state by various well designed exercises and then whilst in this state to meditate by quietly stilling ones remaining thoughts using various techniques. Interestingly this stage is the most difficult if not almost impossible thing to do by far, eliminating all thoughts.
I believe the exercise of meditation of ultimately quieting the mind of thoughts can lead oneself to that point were I am fully aware right up to the point at which I pass from an conscious to an unconscious state.
Hence my basic definition of consciousness (being aware of ones thoughts).
Now you have routinely asked me what I mean by "thinking" and in the post I am addressing you also you ask questions that we are not aware of thinking when it occurs.
The question as to what I mean by thinking should be clearer now, in that even with conscious effort to reduce awareness as much as possible we are still left with thinking which does not want to "go away" as such until we are unconscious and we can no longer differentiate. Therefore thinking for me is that which makes us aware of being conscious, i.e. having a conscious mind which can tell the difference between itself and its thoughts.

As far as awareness of thinking whilst we think is concerned, it now transpires that my consciousness is dependent on the thoughts resulting from my thinking and my awareness of thinking is dependent on my consciousness. The question of memory is therefore related directly to consciousness. More consciousness more memory. More memory more consciousness.

Finally
The last and most important pose in any Yoga routine is Savasana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savasana) which often induces one to become unconscious.
All this is done in order to bring attention to what consciousness is.
What I would be interested in is a scientific investigation, and hence the questions about numbers of brain cells earlier in this thread, as to what activity is happening in the brain under these conditions and how much brain tissue is involved.

 

[Dancing David]

Yes, it's a functional difference. However, the digital computer will still have analogue processes going on.

And so? (I don't recall that this dichotomy is a required use of defintions.) I did not make the claim that it did not. I said that by architechture and design it was set up to process as a digital processor.

That can be determined by looking at the arrangement of it's systems and connections. Those are physical charcteristics.

What is your point? It is used to process the data and instructions digitally. Your statement about functionality seems spurious to me, and a rabbit is only functionally different than a dog.

It is the biological function of the cells that creates the physical characteristics that distinguish a dog from a rabbit.

 

[Dancing David]

Any individual computer can have its operations defined physically, but what is claimed is that all computing devices are performing the same physical process of computing. And this includes using pebbles to count cows.

That is not what i said, what the heck are you talking about.

Who made this claim, where? Please.

You have made a straw man, most people in CT will tell you that is not the case, are you taking your construction of the 'strong AI' argument and applying it in an over broad fashion?

What is the difference between pre-fix and post-fix notation? Seriously there are strategies for speeding up the computation of large multiplication that are processed very differently than the way you do it on a piece of paper.

(I can't remember his name but an instructor I had at the U of I invented a very famous one.)

 

[Dancing David]

Of course these non-physical concepts have physical consequences. It's just not possible to define them precisely in physical terms. It's impossible to provide a physical definition of an overdraft. However, it will have an effect on human beings, who straddle the physical and the conceptual world. Overdrafts are created by physical means, and they effect the physical world, but they are not physical things in and of themselves.

Where does the concept of overdraft exist?
In meta space?

I disagree with you , it is a physical representation in basis and substance.

Where does the concept of 'overdraft' exist?

 

[Dancing David]

If you think that, give me a physical definition of computing that excludes the rocks and the cooling fan, but includes the computer and the cow-counting pebbles.

You have still not elaborated upon this exclusionary principle, nor its application in other areas. maybe you cross posted before I have read the rest of the thread, the description of behaviors is about the 'positive' traist that meet the defintion, unless there is a specific 'negation' rule.

So a defintion of computation could include rocks, if you demonstrate that the rock exhibits those behaviors.

Otherwise you are engaging in the 'proof of a negative' fallacy.

If youw ant to contend that 'rocks' meet the defintion of 'computation', that is your burden of proof.

 

[westprog]

What isn't an analogue process, then, and what's the difference?

Well, that's really my point.

 

[westprog]

You have still not elaborated upon this exclusionary principle, nor its application in other areas. maybe you cross posted before I have read the rest of the thread, the description of behaviors is about the 'positive' traist that meet the definition, unless there is a specific 'negation' rule.

So a defintion of computation could include rocks, if you demonstrate that the rock exhibits those behaviors.

I'm not trying to provide a definition of computation. I don't believe that there is a physical model of computation.

I'm reacting to the insistence by the supporters of Strong AI, such as Rocketdodger and PixyMisa that computation is a real physical process and that it takes place in computers and human brains, (and possibly in devices such as thermostats as well) and that it produces consciousness, but that it doesn't occur in other objects that appear, at first glance, to have similar physical properties.

Otherwise you are engaging in the 'proof of a negative' fallacy.

If you want to contend that 'rocks' meet the defintion of 'computation', that is your burden of proof.

I'm contending that consciousness is still in the realm of "don't know". I don't think the burden of proof is on me to demonstrate that. It's on the people claiming something very specific that I don't believe has been backed up.

 

[westprog]

Where does the concept of overdraft exist?
In meta space?

I disagree with you , it is a physical representation in basis and substance.

Where does the concept of 'overdraft' exist?

In our minds.

 

[PixyMisa]

That is not what i said, what the heck are you talking about.

Who made this claim, where? Please.

You have made a straw man, most people in CT will tell you that is not the case, are you taking your construction of the 'strong AI' argument and applying it in an over broad fashion?

In a sense, though, it is true. All systems that perform computation are carrying out equivalent processes, so a physical definition can be constructed that encompasses all of them, even if in one instance it involves transistors and in another instance a trained monkey and a pile of pebbles.

Such a physical definition would be extremely verbose and completely impractical, which is why we define computation functionally, mathematically. Which is the same way we define everything in physics, so I really don't know what westprog is whining about.

 

[PixyMisa]

In our minds.

Try telling the bank that.

 

[PixyMisa]

Well, that's really my point.

What isn't an analogue process, then, and what's the difference?