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

[Robin]

Not my argument. If I can write an algorithm that can replicate human error then any argument that posits that human error falsifies the mind as an algorithm is false.

But since nobody ever said that human error falisified the mind as an algorithm then the point is irrelevant isn't it?

Straw man and shifting burden of proof at the same time.

Remember it is drkitten and PixyMisa who claim that there is mathematical proof that the mind is an algorithm.

And it was drkitten who advanced as part of this proof that any system that processes information behaves in the way the MoIP say it should.

Now you are saying that any way a system behaves is how the MoIP says it should.

If that is the case then the point is trivially true and proves nothing.

And it says that everything is an algorithm.

In which case why not go ahead and say that everything is an algorithm and save time?

 

[RandFan]

Of course we can along the lines you describe, if we use a certain, very tightly circumscribed definition of consciousness. Merriam-Webster has a good one: (find it here

Main Entry: con·scious·ness
Pronunciation: \-nəs\
Function: noun
Date: 1629
1 a : the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself
b : the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact
c : awareness; especially : concern for some social or political cause
2 : the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought : mind
3 : the totality of conscious states of an individual
4 : the normal state of conscious life <regained consciousness>
5 : the upper level of mental life of which the person is aware as contrasted with unconscious processes

We would be best off sticking to 3, 4, and 5 (and maybe 2).

Sounds good to me. That should do it.

The problem I'm talking about can be illustrated pretty easily by what we find when we do a Google search on "definition of consciousness." Dear Zeus, what a mess. Eighty zillion different philosophical dogmas about what some kind of grand, vague, sweeping definition of "consciousness" supposedly is. This is not at all the same definition of consciousness as what we just saw above in Merriam-Webster.

I don't really care about all that. Consciousness is emperical. We might need another 100 years to figure out all of the details but until then the philosophers and the various cognitive scientists can thrash it all out.

I don't want to limit anyone. Most scientists weren't too keen on Marconi, Red Shift or Solar Wind to name just a few concepts. New paradigms often come from personal drive, inspiration surprising directions. Quantum mechanics and reltivity where both counter intuitive. Who am I to say where the dead ends are? I'm just not that arrogant.

JMO

Randfan, you know better than to make that kind of logical error in an argument, and you know you do. Now come on.

I called it the way I honestly saw it.

 

[RandFan]

No, I am simply saying that an algorithm doesn't always give the output you expect it to give you -- because human knowledge is limited, of course.

The Lucas-Penrose fallacy involves the assumption that the algorithm of a perfect mathematician must give the output Lucas-Penrose expect it to -- the output of knowing something and being correct. But it has been shown, in many rebuttals, that the fact of a perfect mathematician thinking it knows something correctly, and it actually knowing something correctly, are not one and the same -- because the algorithm that constitutes the mathematician can simply be wrong (wrong, as in, the algorithm isn't what everyone thinks it is).

And here you are suggesting the same sort of thing -- that because drkitten makes arithmetic errors his mind not might be an algorithm. Well, that doesn't follow, because his mind could be an algorithm that simply calculates arithmetic incorrectly.

But since nobody ever said that human error falisified the mind as an algorithm then the point is irrelevant isn't it?

I'm simply supporting RocketDodgers argument.

 

[Robin]

No, I never made an argument. I was simply pointing out that your criticism of drkitten's argument was invalid, because nowhere does the mathematics state that an algorithm must compute arithmetic correctly.

And I never suggested there was. Not once.

But drkitten suggested that any system that processes information the way the MoIP says it should.

But if way the MoIP says it should means any behaviour of which the system is capable then his point is only trivially true.

I am not sure why you don't understand that point.

By the way, do you think that in general, it is possible for an algorithm to run on a non-algorithmic system?

 

[RandFan]

I don't get quite what is meant by a "missing thing".

You made the argument that a model of respiration and weather won't result in respiration or weather (or something like that).

It won't because the computer model is incomplete. There are many physical elements missing. It's a fairly simple inference. Perhaps you simply picked a bad analogy. Could you give us another?

I'm assuming that the likely physical explanation for consciousness is that it is, like the weather, a result of physical processes. The way to find how it works is to look at the physical processes.

Based on this I see no problem for AI.

 

[Robin]

I'm simply supporting RocketDodgers argument.

Well perhaps you should think twice before supporting a straw man/shifting burden of proof attack.

 

[RandFan]

By the way, do you think that in general, it is possible for an algorithm to run on a non-algorithmic system?

I don't think so but perhaps it's just my ignorance. Could you provide an example of a non-algorithmic system for the purpose of this question?

 

[RandFan]

Well perhaps you should think twice before supporting a straw man/shifting burden of proof attack.

Oh hell no, if you make an argument and I think your point worth supporting I'll support it.

 

[Robin]

Simply because there is no way to verify it one way or the other.

On the contrary, PixyMisa and drkitten say it can be mathematically proved.

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?

A consciousness that was independent of any physical brain would not qualify as a paranormal or supernatural thing?

What about the Global Consciousness Project, I am pretty sure that I have heard it said that they would qualify if they had proof and they are saying more or less the same thing.

So if GCP qualifies, why not this? What is the difference?

 

[PixyMisa]

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.

No. The concept of qualia is incoherent. Unified consciousness, sure. What actual objection do you have to this?

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.

No. Sorry.

 

[PixyMisa]

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

The million dollars is for proof of a supernatural ability. This qualifies just fine on the proof part, but fails completely on the supernatural part. That's just how the Universe works, Robin. If you isolate the computations, it doesn't matter how fast or how slowly you do them, you still get the same answer.

 

[RandFan]

On the contrary, PixyMisa and drkitten say it can be mathematically proved.

I don't think either PixyMisa or drkitten speak on behalf of James Randi and the Million Dollar challenge.

A consciousness that was independent of any physical brain would not qualify as a paranormal or supernatural thing?

Hell no. How would something that is the product of physical process and predicted by cognitive theory be supernatural?

...I am pretty sure that I have heard it said...

I Don't believe everything I hear. Do you have a reference from someone who is qualified to speak on behalf of the JREF?

 

[PixyMisa]

Ah, a much more interesting question!

Not, there is not, because the algorithm would not be the same.

I'm not sure that such a reverse algorithm is necessarily possible.

But if you divided up the process into millisecond slices, and calculated slice 2000, then 1999, then 1998... Then you would get a moment of consciousness, which would experience everything in the usual order, but be reversed in time with respect to us.

Indeed, you can run the slices in any order at all and get the same result.

 

[RandFan]

Simply because there is no way to verify it one way or the other. Besides,

On the contrary, PixyMisa and drkitten say it can be mathematically proved.

This qualifies just fine on the proof part.

I'm skeptical. I think the proof will be in the pudding but it's not really a point I care to debate.

 

[PixyMisa]

And another thing with this level business.

If I have Blue Brain running a simulation of a Sparc system running a simulation of a PA-RISC running a simulation of an Intel, running a simulation of a power-pc running a simulation of a DragonBall running a simulation of a Z80.

I duly run Pong on the Z80, then which processor is running Pong?

Pick one. The Z80 makes sense from some perspectives, but you can choose any of them.

 

[Robin]

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

What mockery? I was only stating the proposition that you are making in plain terms. Why is that 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.

Did you think that conclusion through? Or did you just grab the first two daft options you thought of and decided there weren't any more?

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.

And then tried to make it sound like the second daft option was a noble act on your part.

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?

It has nothing to do with relativity whatsoever, perceived time is not tied to physical time, you don't have to go running to Einstein to find why the time seems to pass more slowly in a dentists office, or seems to pass more quickly as you grow older. Perceived time is an illusion, even in normal consciousness.

So I have no problems whatsoever that a conscious state lasting a billion years might seem like a half a second and I never said I did.

But it has nothing to do with relativity.

 

[PixyMisa]

But since nobody ever said that human error falisified the mind as an algorithm then the point is irrelevant isn't it?

Straw man and shifting burden of proof at the same time.

Remember it is drkitten and PixyMisa who claim that there is mathematical proof that the mind is an algorithm.

No. That the mind can be reproduced by an algorithm. Subtle but significant difference.

And it says that everything is an algorithm.

Everything can be reproduced by an algorithm.

 

[biomorph]

I didn't quite say that. I'm saying that the job of science is to look for a physical an explanation of phenomena. , and to assume that such an explanation exists.

Occam strikes.......IMO

I don't get quite what is meant by a "missing thing". I'm assuming that the likely physical explanation for consciousness is that it is, like the weather, a result of physical processes. The way to find how it works is to look at the physical processes.

I'm not sure there is a "result of physical processes". just physical processes.

Care to elaborate?

 

[Frank Newgent]

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?

I don't necessarily find your words to be important.

Don't see how you can either when you can't even tell if this is a simulation or not.

 

[drkitten]

Remember it is drkitten and PixyMisa who claim that there is mathematical proof that the mind is an algorithm.

Wrong. I claimed that anything that can execute an algorithm is (at most) a Turing machine.

And it was drkitten who advanced as part of this proof that any system that processes information behaves in the way the MoIP say it should.

Now you are saying that any way a system behaves is how the MoIP says it should.[/QUOTE]

Yes. That's because the mathematics of information processing define the limits of how (information processing) objects are capable of behaving.

That's like saying "any physical object obeys the laws of physics." Yes, that is equivalent to saying "the way any physical object behaves is how the laws of physics say that it should." If you could find an object that did not follow the laws of physics, that would be pretty revolutionary.

If that is the case then the point is trivially true and proves nothing.

Wrong. Because, among other things, there are things that the mathematics of information processing say are not possible do to.

And it says that everything is an algorithm.

At least you got that one more or less right. Certainly anything that can process information involves an algorithm. And since everything is an algorithm, and there are things that algorithms can't do, there are things that can't be done.

That's hardly "trivial."

In which case why not go ahead and say that everything is an algorithm and save time?

I did. You asked me to unpack it, so I did.