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

[westprog]

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.

I've noticed many times, on this thread in particular, the tendency to say "The answer to your question is obvious, and is explained on these links which I expect you to peruse. When I consider that you are worthy to discuss the matter, then I will deign to talk to you".

It's a fairly transparent ruse. If there was a simple, cut'n'pastable physical definition of computing (or of computation, or computronics or computermajigs) then there's nothing to stop the people claiming that such a thing exists from rebutting me right here.

No, you don't get to give me homework. If you want to debate these concepts, then you can do it right here.

 

[westprog]

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.

Everything in physics is defined in terms of physical quantities and relationships. It is never just mathematics.

 

[westprog]

Try telling the bank that.

I think the experience of the last few months has shown that the value of sums in our bank accounts is far more a shared belief than a physical reality.

 

[PixyMisa]

I've noticed many times, on this thread in particular, the tendency to say "The answer to your question is obvious, and is explained on these links which I expect you to peruse. When I consider that you are worthy to discuss the matter, then I will deign to talk to you".

I do this only because you constantly repeat claims that have already been demonstrated to be false, because you are demanding definitions which have already been provided to you.

It's a fairly transparent ruse. If there was a simple, cut'n'pastable physical definition of computing (or of computation, or computronics or computermajigs) then there's nothing to stop the people claiming that such a thing exists from rebutting me right here.

Computation. The term is computation.

Start with the physical definition of information, as I've already provided. You can't get anywhere without that.

Now, once you understand that information is, by definition, a physical property, the process of manipulating information, i.e. computation, is by definition a physical process, your incessant bleating notwithstanding.

 

[westprog]

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

It's all analogue processes. "Digital" is just a name we give to a certain kind of analogue process according to the information we extract from it. It's a functional definition, not a physical one.

 

[PixyMisa]

I think the experience of the last few months has shown that the value of sums in our bank accounts is far more a shared belief than a physical reality.

That sentence may be syntactically valid, but it is, when you get down to it, semantically null.

 

[PixyMisa]

It's all analogue processes. "Digital" is just a name we give to a certain kind of analogue process according to the information we extract from it. It's a functional definition, not a physical one.

So, the switching of state of an electron from one orbital to another, where it can only have one of two rigidly defined energy levels, is analogue?

What a curious definition of analogue you are using there.

 

[westprog]

I do this only because you constantly repeat claims that have already been demonstrated to be false, because you are demanding definitions which have already been provided to you.


Computation. The term is computation.

Start with the physical definition of information, as I've already provided. You can't get anywhere without that.

Now, once you understand that information is, by definition, a physical property, the process of manipulating information, i.e. computation, is by definition a physical process, your incessant bleating notwithstanding.

If you'd actually read that reference then you would have realised that information is a property of all physical systems, that it is being exchanged constantly between and within all physical systems, that the amount of information in even the simplest system is enormous, and that the information which we make use of in "computation" is a microscopic fraction of this.

It's quite clear from that wiki article that information is being processed by the disconnected computer parts just as much as by the working computer - which is what I've been claiming all along, and which I've been ridiculed for. But not rebutted.

 

[westprog]

So, the switching of state of an electron from one orbital to another, where it can only have one of two rigidly defined energy levels, is analogue?

What a curious definition of analogue you are using there.

I've already said that certain events on the quantum scale may be discreet, but that this has nothing to do with the operation of so-called digital devices.

If a device could be found that operated purely on the quantum states of individual particles, then it might be possible to produce a genuinely digital process. This has nothing to do with the operation of computers.

 

[drkitten]

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.

Further to above.

Is the "two" shared by, for example, two apples, two cows, the two moons of Mars, and two successive sunrises a physical or a mathematical property?

If it's a physical property, then one is implicitly accepting the physicality of mathematical concepts, which means that Turing-equivalence is a physical property as well.

If it's a purely mathematical property, then one is implicitly accepting that mathematical properties can have physical consequences, and therefore a mathematical definition of computation such as Turing-equivalence has consequences that are part of the physical world and can be studied as such.

 

[drkitten]

If you'd actually read that reference then you would have realised that information is a property of all physical systems, that it is being exchanged constantly between and within all physical systems, that the amount of information in even the simplest system is enormous, and that the information which we make use of in "computation" is a microscopic fraction of this.

It's quite clear from that wiki article that information is being processed by the disconnected computer parts just as much as by the working computer - which is what I've been claiming all along, and which I've been ridiculed for.

And justly so, because you are slipping the term "processed" into the discussion without warrant.

Non-computational systems do not process information; processing is inherently teleological. In that regard, it's like the teleological definition of a digital signal; what makes a signal digital is the response of the receiver in responding identically to two similar signals.

 

[drkitten]

I've already said that certain events on the quantum scale may be discreet, but that this has nothing to do with the operation of so-called digital devices.

If a device could be found that operated purely on the quantum states of individual particles, then it might be possible to produce a genuinely digital process.

Actually, I've been working on such a device for a while. I plan to call it a "transistor." I suspect it will involve Nobel-level quantum physics.

 

[Dancing David]

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.





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.

Sure , whatever Westprog, I didn't make those claims (but you argued with me any how) and you made a bunch of over general statements (which you refused to clarify and bound), then you use a bunch of sophistry to avoid the issues. I asked you specific questions, I made specific points and you still just wanted to engage in doging and weaving. So ALL the response you made (to me) were not to my posts but some imaginary argument that you had with other people?

Fine , whatever.

You have made up a bogus rule that you can't defend,

I am calling you out on it.

Where else does this exclusionary criteria apply Westprog? You have not furnished ANY evidence that it applies anywhere else except in this specific case of your special pleading.

I have already explianed my defintion of the use of terms, there are a series of criteria, when the process matches the criteria, then the label is applied. Now there are cases where specific negation is sued in the defintion.

You however are engaging in a case of proof through negation in a series of statements when discussing 'digital' vs. 'analog' signals and computers.

So i ask you again,w ehere lse is this exclusionary rule applied, and please remember i am not your imaginary combatant in your imaginary battle with 'stron AI proponents', i am me, and you engaged in sspecif arguments with me.

So again before we return to the issue of digital vs. analog and ultimately to page three and four of the post i ask you again:

Where else does this exclusionary rule apply in the use of labels in discussions and especially in the realm of tools and computers?

 

[Dancing David]

It's all analogue processes. "Digital" is just a name we give to a certain kind of analogue process according to the information we extract from it. It's a functional definition, not a physical one.

See you do believe a dog is a rabbit!

They both have the EXACT same processes underlying their biology so OBVIOUSLY they are the same.

 

[Dancing David]

In our minds.

And where pray tell dear Westprog does the 'mind' exist, in meta space?

 

[Dancing David]

Everything in physics is defined in terms of physical quantities and relationships. It is never just mathematics.

Relationships! Relationships, what the FRED are you talking about, those don't EXIST, those are just FUNCTIONAL definitions!

 

[PixyMisa]

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.

The point is that they DON'T appear, even at first glance, to have similar physical properties. They appear, at first glance, upon closer inspection, and upon detailed analysis, to have radically different physical properties.

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.

And yet you are unable to tell the difference between a working computer and a pile of parts.

 

[PixyMisa]

I've already said that certain events on the quantum scale may be discreet, but that this has nothing to do with the operation of so-called digital devices.

If a device could be found that operated purely on the quantum states of individual particles, then it might be possible to produce a genuinely digital process. This has nothing to do with the operation of computers.

Westprog, there is nothing but quantum states of individual particles.

So whence this "analogue" of yours?

 

[Belz...]

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.

It doesn't work... but it has the same processes as a working computer, then ?

 

[rocketdodger]

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.

wtf? I gave you one. Why are you ignoring it?