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

[Dancing David]

Here.



Thats just the thing. There is no carbon "within the simulation".

Another on two week IGNORE.

 

[PixyMisa]

Another on two week IGNORE.

Hmm. If everyone else ignores him, I'll have to unignore him just to correct his errors.

Please, no.

 

[AkuManiMani]

No. Why you persist in this absurdity is unclear.

If you were deliberately attempting to be ironic kudos would be in order. At this point, I'm not sure which is more absurd: The incredible degree of cognitive dissonance you must require to maintain your position, or my persistent willingness to even bother trying to cut thru it.

BTW, I'm still waiting for you to stop circling the hedges and pick up the gauntlet.

Thats just the thing. There is no carbon "within the simulation".

Category error. There is carbon in the simulation. It's simulated. That's what "simulation" means.

[...]

My point is that this claim is both unsupported and mathematically impossible.

[...]

My point is that no matter what the underlying physics may be, it can be simulated, and the results are identical.

You can't just keep saying "no it can't". We've established that it can, based on mathematical and physical principles. If you disagree, then you have to disagree with at least one of those mathematical or physical principles.

Which ones, exactly?

[...]

No. No matter what the physics are (and indeed, we know perfectly well what the physics are; Penrose is just plain wrong), as long as they are logically consistent they can be simulated, and therefore, so can consciousness.

[...]

Yes. And therefore, it can be simulated.

I truly wish you had the presence of mind to see the sheer absurdity of your own assertions. A simulation of carbon is NOT carbon; its a representation. Whether one writes a comprehensive and mathematically accurate description of a carbon molecule, draws a diagram of it, builds as 3-dimensional model, or instantiates a dynamic computer simulation of a carbon molecule -- no matter how detailed -- it is still just a REPRESENTATION of ACTUAL carbon molecules.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Another on two week IGNORE.

Eh? Somebody says something you don't like, and your response is to publicly announce that you're going to hide from what they're saying? Is "Ignore" s'posed to be some kind a punitive measure now?

Dude... /facepalm

 

[Robin]

Then you have a problem with reality.

But you are disagreeing with the same thing that Malerin is disagreeing with.

 

[Robin]

Yes, right. That is why I am asking for an example of a process involving nondiscrete quantities (= nonalgorithmic process) that might be necessary for consciousness.

I imagine that the whole brain is necessary for consciousness. Which parts of the brain are unnecessary for consciousness?

Are you asking me to list the non-discrete processes in the brain?

Or are you trying to say that the brain might be nonalgorithmic but only include algorithmic processes?

If I was I would have said so.

I am saying that there is no reasoning that would lead to the conclusion that the brain is algorithmic.

You can simulate a non-algorithmic process so the ability to simulate it does not imply it is algorithmic.

You can run algorithms on a non-algorithmic system so the ability to run algorithms does not imply that it is algorithmic.

The C-T thesis does not say it is algorithmic

No-one can suggest any mechanism whereby a bunch of individual calculations on natural numbers could lead to this unified conscious experience I have.

If the brain is an algorithm then I have to conclude that this unified conscious experience I have might be produced by, not one mechanism, but lots of mechanisms which exist, unconnected and in isolation from each other.

Now I might be persuaded to that view but:

But nobody has yet produced a coherent reason why I should think the brain is an algorithm in the first place.

 

[Robin]

Huh? I admit I haven't been following the conversation about this, but what the heck?

Is someone saying that not every simulation of consciousness produces consciousness?

~~ Paul

Here is the link http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5385276#post5385276

No -- you haven't been paying attention.

The consciousness occurs when you program the devices, not when they execute their instructions.

In other words, the "recheck" doesn't mean anything, only the initial run. And everything else is simply a remapping of the initial run. The initial run is the consciousness.

So Paul, do you think you could be Run4?

 

[Frank Newgent]

Well, I am currently in Wisconsin, not Nevada, and Madison, not Las Vegas, and in my house, not a pub.

Way back when I drove and dispatched cab for ten years in Madison, RD (Badger Cab and Union Cab). The lakes, the isthmus, the UW, radiating streets off the Capitol square, all make for unpredictable block numbering and irregular street layouts.

I knew it well

 

[Robin]

Can anyone spot the problem with the argument, "it's only numbers"?

Please point me to the physical numbers in my computer Robin.

Thanks.

I see, so now algorithms have nothing to do with numbers?

Oh brother.

 

[Robin]

An algorithm, carried out on any Turing-complete system, can examine and modify its own operation.

An algorithm, carried out on any system. Cannot do anything.

All that happens is that each step is evaluated one by one. Whatever is processing each step does so in complete isolation from the last step.

The "algorithm" is not examining anything. It is just sitting there in storage.

You mention instructions and data. But there's no fixed distinction between the two. Instructions are data. And data can be instructions.

Your point being?

 

[Robin]

There is a lot of evidence that the brain is at least a Turing machine.

And maybe someone will supply some one day?

So if someone wants to propose that it is more powerful...

That red herring again.

 

[yy2bggggs]

An algorithm, carried out on any system. Cannot do anything.

All that happens is that each step is evaluated one by one. Whatever is processing each step does so in complete isolation from the last step.

Huh?

This seems trivially false. I'm confused why you would assert such a thing.

 

[Robin]

You still don't get it.

Run1 and Run2 are fine -- the program and the isomorphism are one and the same.

Run3 is where you begin to go astray -- by caching all the intermediate data, and simply playing it, you have moved much of the isomorphism into whatever substrate you used as memory for the intermediate data.

Let me give an example. Take a simple processor model and the following program:

IP=0, IR = 0, FL=0, A=0, B=0
00 LD IR 0F
01 XOR A A
02 ST A 14
03 LD A (14)
04 LD B (0E)
05 CMP A B
06 JE 20
07 INC IR
08 LD B (IR)
09 ADD A B
0A ST A (21)
0B INC IR
0C JMP 03
0D RET
0E FF
0F 01
10 21
11 30
12 21
13 FF
14 00

I can implement this using a sparse array for memory so that it only holds the values actually required, then I could run this once and package it up in individual packets which hold the code, the necessary values and the registers:

IP=08, IR=11, FL=0, A=22, B=0
08 LD B (IR)
11 30

and swap each one in in order. To the processor this would be no different to context switching or paging.

So this looks no different to the processor than the first run.

So why would there be a difference?

If the mind is an algorithm then I could run an algorithm equivalent to the mind on this processor.

So why would the first run produce consciousness, but the behaviourally identical second run, using the packaged instructions, not produce consciousness?

 

[Robin]

Huh?

This seems trivially false. I'm confused why you would assert such a thing.

It seems trivially true to me.

Are you telling me that algorithms are not run step by step?

Are you telling me that whan a particular step is evaluated the processor goes and has a look at the whole algorithm just to check what is going on?

I am not sure of what you are saying here.

An algorithm is not a thing that can inspect anything. It is just a bunch of numbers.

The CPU does not know what has come before when it processees an instruction.

 

[yy2bggggs]

It seems trivially true to me.

Are you telling me that algorithms are not run step by step?

No, that they can do things, and that they are not in total isolation of the last step.

Write the numbers 1 through 100 on a sheet of paper. Run through a sieve of Eratosthenes.

You not only do something... but what you do depends on the previous step.

I'm confused why you would claim that algorithms can't do things, and that each step is in complete isolation. That doesn't actually sound like what you're describing is an algorithm at all.

 

[Robin]

No, that they can do things, and that they are not in total isolation of the last step.

Write the numbers 1 through 100 on a sheet of paper. Run through a sieve of Eratosthenes.

You not only do something... but what you do depends on the previous step.

But the data that the processor is processing at any particular time does not have all of that logic encoded into it.

If I add 4+2 and get 6, by the time the next instruction comes along the "4+2" cannot be deduced from the 6. The step sees 6 and nothing else.

I confused why you would claim that algorithms can't do things, and that each step is in complete isolation.

Because algorithms can't do things.

They are a bunch of numbers, that is all.

They are processed step by step.

One step at a time, the only information that the processor considers is the particular numbers it needs to process.

That doesn't actually sound like what you're describing is an algorithm at all.

If you are describing something that can inspect itself or do anything whatsoever you are not describing an algorithm.

An algorithm does not do anything.

I mean for crying out loud - cyborg says algorithms have nothing to do with numbers, and you and PixyMisa tell me they are things with some internal power to inspect themselves.

 

[Robin]

No, that they can do things

How can an algorithm do something? Give me an example of an algorithm doing something.

 

[Robin]

You not only do something...

That is right you do something. Not the algorithm.

And if a machine processes it then it does not know or care at any given step what any of the other steps are.

 

[yy2bggggs]

But the data that the processor is processing at any particular time does not have all of that logic encoded into it.

But the processor isn't the algorithm. The algorithm is the series of steps.

An algorithm is a series of steps. Are we speaking different languages?

Besides... what processor are you referring to? I've got a pencil, and a sheet of paper, and I'm currently pointing to the number "5", so I need to make sure every fifth number is crossed out. So I count off every 5 numbers--if it's not crossed out, I cross it out.

If I add 4+2 and get 6, by the time the next instruction comes along the "4+2" cannot be deduced from the 6. The step sees 6 and nothing else.

It doesn't matter. It sees 6 because it added 4+2, and it added 4+2 because that was the previous step in the algorithm.

The algorithm's current step is involved in using the 6 because the algorithm's previous result was 4+2.

If there is anything at all I could possibly mean by not being in total isolation of the previous step, this would be the only thing I could come up with.

I don't see the relevance of whether or not I remember, while I'm crossing out every 17th integer, if on the last run I crossed out every 13th integer. It might be nice to remember that if asked, but it doesn't have much to do with the fact that I'm going through an algorithm. And as long as I go through that algorithm, I'm not going to have to be bothered by crossing out every 15th integer, because the algorithm doesn't have me doing that.

Because algorithms can't do things.

They are a bunch of numbers, that is all.

They aren't necessarily a bunch of numbers. An algorithm is a series of steps.

They are processed step by step.

Yes, but the whole series of steps, including which other step to do next or whatever else is prescribed--as long as it's well defined--is the algorithm.

Not the steps in isolation.

That's just not what an algorithm is.

And yes, one step at a time. That's how you do algorithms.

If you are describing something that can inspect itself or do anything whatsoever you are not describing an algorithm.

Unless the thing you're describing is a series of well defined steps.

An algorithm does not do anything.

The sieve of Eratosthenes produces prime numbers.

and you and PixyMisa tell me they are things with some internal power to inspect themselves.

I don't believe I've told you that.

All I'm telling you is that algorithms do things and that each step is not in isolation, nominally speaking.

I cannot see how you can actually claim it is, unless you're speaking some alien tongue.

How can an algorithm do something? Give me an example of an algorithm doing something.

The sieve of Eratosthenes produces prime numbers.

That is right you do something. Not the algorithm.

Well obviously the algorithm has to be carried out, but I would think that's a given. It's given in your example with your program that some series of steps is being carried out step by step.

And if a machine processes it then it does not know or care at any given step what any of the other steps are.

But that doesn't matter. The machine processes are not the algorithm. The algorithm is the series of steps.

 

[SnidelyW]

...snip...

Straightforward, simple, and completely wrong. The brain is not a Bose-Einstein condensate.

Thanks for your response.


This is a public forum, not an academic one, so let's fill in the blanks, shall we?

Imagine atoms in a bowl, with greatly magnified energy.
What Einstein's equations predicted was that at normal temperatures those atoms would be at many different levels.
However, at very low temperatures, a large number of the atoms would suddenly crash down to the very lowest energy level. The atoms piling up in the bottom of the 'bowl' is what is called a Bose-Einstein condensation (Bose was a brilliant Indian scientist who was studying what we now call photons, and asked Einstein to take a look at his ideas). No one quite realized how weird a material would be with all the atoms in one level like this. It means that all the atoms are absolutely identical. There is no possible measurement that can tell them apart.

In Bose-Einstein condensates, the quantum properties allow both a " fluid " order and a high degree of unity. Each particle in a Bose-Einstein condensate fills all the space and all the time in whatever container that holds the condensate. Many of their characteristics are correlated. They behave holistically as one. The condensate acts as one single particle. There is no " noise " or interference between separate parts. This is why super fluids and superconductors have their special frictionless qualities and laser becomes so coherent. Superconductors, super fluids and lasers are Bose-Einstein condensates. The photons of a laser beam overlap their boundaries and behave as one single photon, and the whole system can be described by a single equation. Okay, so here is where we make the jump to the brain.
Quantum coherence at body temperature in body cells was found by Herbert Frolich. One of the great pioneers in superstate physics, he described a model of a system of coupled molecular oscillators in a heat bath, supplied with energy at a constant rate. When this rate exceeds a certain threshold then a condensation of the whole system of oscillators takes place into one giant dipole mode, similar to Bose-Einstein condensation. A coherent, nonlocal order emerges.
Prior to that quantum physicist Fritz Popp discovered that biological tissue emits a weak glow when stimulated at the right energy levels .
Cell walls of biological tissue contain countless proteins and fat molecules which are electrical dipoles. When a cell is at rest these dipoles are out of phase and arrange themselves in a haphazard way. But when they are stimulated they begin to oscillate or jiggle intensely and broadcast a tiny microwave signal. Frolich found that when the energy flowing through the cell reaches a certain critical level, all the cell wall molecular dipoles line up and come into phase. They oscillate in unison as though they are suddenly coordinated. This emergent quantum field mimics a Bose-Einstein condensate and has holistic properties common to any quantum field.

It has been suggested that these ion channel oscillations in neurons are quantum phenomena which generate a Frolich like coherent electric field. There are ion channels ( protein molecules ) lining the membrane walls of individual neurons, which open or close in response to electrical fluctuations resulting from stimulation. They act like gates to let Sodium , Potassium and other ions through.
They are of a size to be subject to quantum fluctuations and superposition. Each channel as it oscillates generates a tiny electric field. When a large number of ion channels open and close in unison, as they do when stimulated, the whole neuron fires or oscillates and a large scale electric field is generated across the neuron. Certain neurons act as pacemakers. When a pacemaker neuron oscillates in response to a stimulation, whole bundles of neurons oscillate with it.
Neurobiologists have found that when a person sees an object all neurons in the cerebral cortex associated with the perceived object oscillate in unison regardless of their location in the brain.
It has been suggested that the original ion channel oscillations are quantum phenomena which, as in the Frolich system above, generate a coherent quantum electric field. It is essentially a Bose-Einstein condensate. Existence of such large scale coherent electrical fields across the brain may explain how a large number of disparate and distant neurons can integrate their information to produce a holistic picture. The proof fairly recently that nonlocal ( instantaneous or faster than light ) quantum correlations exists between particles apparently separated in space and time has helped researchers to understand these effects.
The distinguishing and interesting feature of a Bose-Einstein condensate is that many parts which go to make up the ordered system not only behave as a whole , but they become whole.