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

[tsig]

I think it's just that you are using a very specific, engineering definition of digital information. I am saying that digital information is any information that can be reduced to a precise number, and a digital signal is one that can carry digital information. If that is not your definition, then we are unlikely to agree.

I really can't see how your definition defines anything.

What is a "precise number"? Are we talking levels of precision?

Anyway, here's Wiki:

"A digital system[1] is a data technology that uses discrete (discontinuous) values. By contrast, non-digital (or analog) systems use a continuous range of values to represent information."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital

As you can see by that definition just because you can write down a number for an analogue value that does not make it a digital one.

 

[rocketdodger]

I really can't see how your definition defines anything.

What is a "precise number"? Are we talking levels of precision?

Anyway, here's Wiki:

"A digital system[1] is a data technology that uses discrete (discontinuous) values. By contrast, non-digital (or analog) systems use a continuous range of values to represent information."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital

As you can see by that definition just because you can write down a number for an analogue value that does not make it a digital one.

I think by precise he means discrete or even finite.

Although that is admittedly still ambiguous in reality because we define all discrete values as ratios anyway, so you can have values in a continuous space that become the basis for digital interpretations. For example, I can define one "unit" as the relative charge between a neutron and a proton -- boom, I have made a value in the continuum of real numbers into a discrete one.

 

[Belz...]

A physical description says what is in a system. A functional description says what we want it to do. Two processes can have identical functional descriptions and be entirely physically different. It doesn't mean that something with a functional description doesn't act in a physical way.

It's always an error in science to assume that two things that are functionally similar can be classified together. Bats aren't birds.

Are we not all using the same definition of "physical", then ?

 

[PixyMisa]

I think it's just that you are using a very specific, engineering definition of digital information. I am saying that digital information is any information that can be reduced to a precise number, and a digital signal is one that can carry digital information. If that is not your definition, then we are unlikely to agree.

Oh, good. In that case, all information and all signals are digital.

 

[rocketdodger]

A physical description says what is in a system. A functional description says what we want it to do. Two processes can have identical functional descriptions and be entirely physically different. It doesn't mean that something with a functional description doesn't act in a physical way.

It's always an error in science to assume that two things that are functionally similar can be classified together. Bats aren't birds.

This is very pertinent to the discussion at hand, and I think it illustrates the mentality you are approaching this issue with, westprog.

Because yes, bats are not birds. Yet, both bats and birds fly.

If you were to ask a bat "are you a bird?" the bat might say "sure, because I fly."

In fact, from the perspective of a bat, all it knows is that it does indeed fly. It can move in the air, it can land, it can take off, it can view our world from a perspective that only flying creatures can reach.

When we are talking about consciousness, the issue isn't whether something is human or not, the issue is whether it has the features we consider essential for consciousness. And unless you are going to say that only humans are conscious, I think you have to consider this. Because chimps are clearly not humans, and dolphins are not humans, etc, and anyone you ask is going to say this difference is utterly irrelevant when it comes to classifying them as conscious or not.

 

[rocketdodger]

Oh, good. In that case, all information and all signals are digital.

You mean everything is digital, but then it is analog, before it is digital again. And it might be analog and/or digital a few more times in between, for good measure.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Many (most) animals have homosexual and/or non-reproductive individuals.

Not by choice they don't.

Homosexuality is pretty common, suggesting that it may have some selective advantage in groups, or is at least neutral.

Hard to see what the selective advantage is. I'm not sure this works genetically.

There's no evidence for or reason for there to be any 'purpose' in biology. Unless you define 'purpose' in terms of simple causality (e.g. the purpose of water is to make things wet, etc).

Here I am defining "purpose" in terms of "the reason this specific type of entity exists." Water was not created in order to make things wet. Human beings are complex entities which are the result of creative process - regardless of whether you consider that process to be entirely blind or partially or wholly the result of non-natural processes. Water exists as a direct result of the laws of physics being the way they are - there is no more "design" required.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Your claim is logically equivalent to the claim that any system that exists as the result of a natural selection process has the inherent purpose of producing more such systems.

Are you prepared to defend such a claim?

I don't agree that it is logically equivalent. However, I would agree that all biological systems (we are including here things like ant colonies) have the inherent purpose of producing more such systems. The only case in which this does not apply is the entire global ecosystem, which has no need to reproduce itself - although in human form it is trying to spread beyond the Earth.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

!Kaggen to prime the pump, why is verbal cognition concering awareness your defining trait for consciousness.

It seems to me there is more to the general usage of the term than that. Such as the 'the unconscious body lay on the floor'.

We don't say this about humans. We wouldn't say "his body lay on the floor" unless he was actually dead (i.e. we linguistically acknowledge that after he's dead, HE is no longer present - only his body is present.) We would say "He was laid out unconscious on the floor" or "he lay unconscious on the floor".

 

[westprog]

Hard to see what the selective advantage is. I'm not sure this works genetically.

You have species X on an island - A,B,C,D,E are male - V, W, X, Y, Z are female. All have appropriate sexual drives. A is better at everything than BCDE. All the females are better off with his genes. BCDE are best served by pairing up and moving in together, since the girls aren't interested. It's at least better than the option for farm animals, where BCDE get sent for slaughter.

That's not to say that homosexuality is necessary or prevalent in every species, but it's easy to see how it might arise.

 

[drkitten]

Not by choice they don't.

Not relevant; most animals seem not to have much capacity for "choice" generally -- and it's not clear that human homosexuals are that way "by choice" anyway.

Hard to see what the selective advantage is. I'm not sure this works genetically.

Preservation of resources among grandchildren. One of the interesting findings coming out of human genetics is that later children are more likely to homosexuals. It is suggested that this allows them to help gather resources to be used to raise and support their nieces and nephews (who share much of their genes) instead of competing with them.

Here I am defining "purpose" in terms of "the reason this specific type of entity exists." Water was not created in order to make things wet. Human beings are complex entities which are the result of creative process - regardless of whether you consider that process to be entirely blind or partially or wholly the result of non-natural processes.

So,.... you're telling me that you can't distinguish between "cause" and "purpose"?

The cause (the reason that particular fire exists )is because I lit a burner. The purpose is because I want tea.

Or, if you prefer, the cause of the fire is me lighting a match. The purpose is because I need the insurance money.

 

[westprog]

I really can't see how your definition defines anything.

What is a "precise number"? Are we talking levels of precision?

No, it's whatever we take from the signal.

Anyway, here's Wiki:

"A digital system[1] is a data technology that uses discrete (discontinuous) values. By contrast, non-digital (or analog) systems use a continuous range of values to represent information."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital

As you can see by that definition just because you can write down a number for an analogue value that does not make it a digital one.

Actually, it does. The above definition specifies the use made of the signal.

Whatever value that modulates in a signal, be it frequency, amplitude, voltage, or number of pebbles thrown over a fence, it is possible to assign sub-ranges to particular values. Thus it's possible to extract digital information from the signal.

If you insist that even though you can extract digital information from a signal that doesn't make it a digital signal, then we're just arguing about definitions. It's the fact that you can always get digital information from an analogue signal that is central to my contention. What you call the signals doesn't matter.

 

[westprog]

Working computers and piles of computer parts don't have the EXACT same processes, either.

Nor do working computers and human brains, which is the point.

 

[RandFan]

Whatever value that modulates in a signal, be it frequency, amplitude, voltage, or number of pebbles thrown over a fence, it is possible to assign sub-ranges to particular values. Thus it's possible to extract digital information from the signal.

If you insist that even though you can extract digital information from a signal that doesn't make it a digital signal, then we're just arguing about definitions. It's the fact that you can always get digital information from an analogue signal that is central to my contention. What you call the signals doesn't matter.

I agree.

 

[westprog]

Are we not all using the same definition of "physical", then ?

I've been using it as meaning within the realm of the study of physics. Perhaps that has caused some ambiguity.

When I've been saying a physical process, I mean a process that is sufficiently well defined that it can be described in terms of other processes considered to be within the realm of physics, eventually reducing to fundamental processes such as electromagnetism, etc. I said this at the start, but it might not be obvious to people who came in late.

 

[drkitten]

Nor do working computers and human brains, which is the point.

No, but the point of the Strong AI thesis is that, while they are not exact matches, they are equivalent (in a well-defined way) that excludes things like rocks that are not Turing-complete.

 

[westprog]

I agree.

I knew that if I kept posting on this thread long enough, someone would agree with me about something.

 

[westprog]

No, but the point of the Strong AI thesis is that, while they are not exact matches, they are equivalent (in a well-defined way) that excludes things like rocks that are not Turing-complete.

Well, that's the debate we are having.

I'm not saying A = B, I'm saying A is as much like B as it is like C.

More soon.

 

[Dancing David]

Hard to see what the selective advantage is. I'm not sure this works genetically.

Um just as when birds have younger sibs raised by older sibs, if you have non-reproducing members in a group who help rear children there is apossible benefit.

Sibs share 50% of genetic material so homsexual sibs have an investment in other sibs they raise.

 

[drkitten]

I'm not saying A = B, I'm saying A is as much like B as it is like C.

Yes, but you're also wrong in saying it.

"Computation" has a very well-defined meaning. Computers do it by design. Humans appear to do it (to any degree of testing we've been able to determine). Rocks appear not to do it, again to any degree of testing we've been able to run, and to a very high degree of mathematical confidence, based on a demonstrable incapacity to execute the necessary primitive operations.

"Consciousness" does not have such a well-defined meaning. But since the proposed "physical" (i.e. QM-based) explanations are demonstrably inadequate in several regards -- basically, they get both the physics wrong and the neuroanatomy wrong, the "computational" explanation at least wins by default in head-to-head competition.