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

[RandFan]

Not that I want to derail the thread but: such as ?

To be fair, I'm talking about conventional computers not holodecks. If you can get your computer to provide you oranges without any input of water, sucrose, proteins and all other constituent properties of oranges then I would be very impressed.

If your argument is idealism then I will concede the argument. It's theoretically possible to create The Thirteenth Floor. It's possible that our virtual hero could get stuck in a rainstorm and catch a cold, be miserable and have to run to the store for lozenges. Orange flavored ones.

 

[drkitten]

But neither of these definitions will get you across the mathematical/physical divide (as earlier definitions had suggested).

You would have a pretty hard time convincing me that a brain is a function of natural numbers.

That's because the mathematical/physical "divide," as you so quaintly put it, is not something that needs to be gotten across. Consciousness is described functionally, not physically. Any physical object that processes information behaves as the mathematics of information processing describes -- by definition.

 

[Robin]

Oh, sigh. Every once in a while, I just have to pop in here. The consciousness-related discussion over on the "human spirit" forum is interesting, so I recommend checking it out. But really now... "qualia" from electronics?

That is mild.

The claim being made here is that there can be a unified quale across millions of people and billions of years produced by nothing more than doing some mental arithmetic and jotting down the answers on a pieces of paper.

I imagine that if someone applied for the million dollar challenge with that claim and provided the Church-Turing thesis as proof then they would be mocked mercilessly in this forum.

 

[Robin]

That's because the mathematical/physical "divide," as you so quaintly put it, is not something that needs to be gotten across.

So you mean that I can arbitrarily substitute a physical object like a parsnip or a penwiper into a mathematical expression and the expression will prove something about the physical object?

And here we are wasting all this time on the experimental method.

Consciousness is described functionally, not physically.

Which means what exactly?

And in any case, the claim being made is about how consciousness is produced, not described.

Any physical object that processes information behaves as the mathematics of information processing describes -- by definition.

You mean computers never emit loud bangs and emit smoke in the middle of an important piece of work?

 

[Robin]

Not that I want to derail the thread but: such as ?

OK, here is a great business opportunity.

Write a simulation of a dynamo and get it to provide the electricity for the computer running the simulation.

Global warming solved in a flash.

 

[drkitten]

So you mean that I can arbitrarily substitute a physical object like a parsnip or a penwiper into a mathematical expression and the expression will prove something about the physical object?

Not arbitrarily, no. You need to make sure that the mathematics is being used appropriately.

But if I were to collect 7580 parsnips and 20420 penwipes together, you wouldn't need to count them to determine there were 28000 objects in all.

And here we are wasting all this time on the experimental method.

See above. To the best of my knowledge, the experiment described in the previous paragraph has never actually been done. Nevertheless, I feel confident enough of its result that I submit that to actually do the physical experiment would be the waste of time. Using the mathematics actually saves time over driving to every grocery store in town gathering thousands of parsnips, yes?

 

[RandFan]

The claim being made here is that there can be a unified quale across millions of people and billions of years produced by nothing more than doing some mental arithmetic and jotting down the answers on a pieces of paper.

I imagine that if someone applied for the million dollar challenge with that claim and provided the Church-Turing thesis as proof then they would be mocked mercilessly in this forum.

Perhaps by those who think that an appeal to intuition is proof of something.

 

[Robin]

Anyone venture a guess as to the outcome?

Based on polls I have taken here, most people on this forum at least would outright deny that the result said anything whatsoever about consciousness.

 

[RandFan]

Based on polls I have taken here, most people on this forum at least would outright deny that the result said anything whatsoever about consciousness.

It was an appeal to the crowd so I deserve your counter argument ad numerum. Touché.

 

[rocketdodger]

The words quoted are arbitrarily located.

And are the words important because of their arbitrary location, or because of something else, such as the very non-arbitrary relationship they have with other words, or even the location of other words?

 

[Robin]

Not arbitrarily, no. You need to make sure that the mathematics is being used appropriately.

How do you make sure that the mathematics is being used appropriately when you substitute the human brain into the Church-Turing thesis?

How exactly do you substitute the brain into the Church-Turing thesis?

But if I were to collect 7580 parsnips and 20420 penwipes together, you wouldn't need to count them to determine there were 2800 objects in all.

For example here, your brain is an information processing device but does not appear to have worked as the mathematics of information processing describe.

 

[drkitten]

How do you make sure that the mathematics is being used appropriately when you substitute the human brain into the Church-Turing thesis?

How exactly do you substitute the brain into the Church-Turing thesis?

By knowing what I'm talking about. Most of the groundwork was laid by Turing himself, when he pointed out that only finitely many physical object are distinguishable at any physical scale, and therefore the TM need represent only finitely many tape symbols.

For example here, your brain is an information processing device but does not appear to have worked as the mathematics says it should.

Apparently the forum software deleted the extra zero....

 

[rocketdodger]

That is mild.

The claim being made here is that there can be a unified quale across millions of people and billions of years produced by nothing more than doing some mental arithmetic and jotting down the answers on a pieces of paper.

I imagine that if someone applied for the million dollar challenge with that claim and provided the Church-Turing thesis as proof then they would be mocked mercilessly in this forum.

So time diliation shouldn't apply to consciousness, then?

Because that is really what you are saying -- that there is some absolute reference frame and consciousness will only arise if the rates of the underlying process match some (probably arbitrary) range in this absolute reference frame.

Which flies in the face of relativity.

 

[Robin]

Perhaps by those who think that an appeal to intuition is proof of something.

But I don't somehow don't see the million dollars being handed over.

 

[Robin]

So time diliation shouldn't apply to consciousness, then?

I don't actually recall saying that, but please go ahead and say where I did.

 

[rocketdodger]

But there is. We are always at zero level. If we are in a simulation we are deceived about what zero level is, but we are still at zero level.

Whatever mechanism is producing our consciousness is producing our consciousness, be it neurons or something else.

You seem to have missed the point.

If we are wrong about what the zero level is, then there are negative levels. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Here is the question I would like you to answer -- if we are in a simulation, is there any mathematical reason that a property of an entity in our level could not be replicated at a lower level?

 

[Robin]

By knowing what I'm talking about. Most of the groundwork was laid by Turing himself, when he pointed out that only finitely many physical object are distinguishable at any physical scale, and therefore the TM need represent only finitely many tape symbols.

But so what?

I am asking exactly how you construct a mathematical expression that demonstrates that the human brain, or any animal brain, is equivalent to a turing machine.

And remember that we have already established that we cannot rely on it to behave as the mathematics of information processing say it should.

 

[RandFan]

But I don't somehow don't see the million dollars being handed over.

Simply because there is no way to verify it one way or the other. Besides, I'm not sure what it has to do with the challenge in the first place. You would need to address that rather important point before you would even be allowed to apply. Do you know what the challenge is?

At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event.

 

[rocketdodger]

I don't actually recall saying that, but please go ahead and say where I did.

You specifically included the large time span "billions of years" in your mockery.

If you don't think the non-relative rate of the underlying process has anything to do with whether or not consciousness can arise, then you should not have included that -- it would be dishonest.

Since I do not consider you dishonest, I assume that you do indeed think the non-relative rate has something to do with whether or not consciousness can arise.

However, the notion that something can happen at only one non-relative rate, as opposed to any rate as long as the relative rate is the same, is contrary to relativity.

Understand? It is quite simple -- if you are on a starship traveling near lightspeed, a single picosecond of your thought will take billions of years from the perspective of someone back on Earth. Are you no longer conscious, because you took so long to think a thought?

 

[drkitten]

But so what?

I am asking exactly how you construct a mathematical expression that demonstrates that the human brain, or any animal brain, is equivalent to a turing machine.

By showing that a Turing-machine is a universal computational device.
Anything that is capable of computing -- of performing arithmetic, really -- is either equivalent to a Turing machine or is less powerful than a Turing machine.

Since humans are capable of performing arithmetic, they are either equivalent to or less powerful than a Turing machine.