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

[yy2bggggs]

FYI, let's get this out of the way:

I was??? Where? ... What on earth are you talking about here? What is part 1 and part 2? What is before and after the dash?

Are you referring to something I said here? I have no idea what you are even asking.

My post makes a lot more sense if you read it in the forum instead of the edit box on the Reply page.

Wow, your "simplification" was much more complicated than my original example. How does it differ?

You're comparing to the wrong thing.

I only mention two instructions, and token steps before and after. Compare that to my doing a Run3 analysis using your entire program... now do you think it's simpler?

Anyway, what I'm claiming, specifically, is that Y is affected by X.

So are you or are you not claiming that there is something in the system what will be able to tell that the black box has not lived up to it's guarantee, so that this processor cycle should somehow produce some different result, even though the value of the datum that was stored was the same as the one that was retrieved?

No. I'm claiming that the black box does live up to its guarantee, given that it ran the algorithm. If it didn't, we wouldn't say it ran the algorithm.

Since you're describing an algorithm, I know the entire system--not just the processor--behaved as expected.

I thought that you and rocketdodger were claiming that those instructions would produce a different result in Run3 as they did in Run1.

Nope. I'm claiming that each step is not in total isolation from the other steps.

In my lexicon, if somebody were to knock me out cold outside, and it began to rain, I would not be able to say that I was in "total isolation" from the rain. The fact that I don't know I'm in the rain doesn't make me isolated from the rain. The fact that it rains on me means that I'm not in "total isolation" from the rain.

Likewise, if your processor wrote to address 40 at X, and read from it at Y, and at Y it got the same thing that was put there at X, I wouldn't call it "totally isolated" from the rest of the steps. I would personally describe this exactly the opposite way--it is not totally isolated from what happened at X, but rather, is wholly dependent on what happened at X:

If X wrote 12, Y reads 12. If X wrote 6, Y reads 6. If X wrote 9, Y reads 9. That certainly doesn't sound like isolated to me.

And I've never heard of the phrase "total isolation" working in a manner different from my lexicon... until this thread came along.

As far as I know when the CPU processes a particular instruction it has no idea where the data came from beyond the memory location specified and no idea where it is going to go beyond the memory location specified.

Yes, but that sounds like you're stressing the fact that I was knocked out cold before it rained on me.

But it still rained on me. I'm not totally isolated from the rain just because I don't know it's raining.

If you still decide that you use the words "total isolation" differently than I do, then I'm completely confused. Could you give me an example of a thing in total isolation from another thing, and another example of a thing not being in total isolation of another thing?

For me, if A is a cause-in-fact of B--that is, if "but for" A, B would not have happened--then it's wrong to say that B is in total isolation from A. And it's so painfully obvious that X is a cause-in-fact of Y's specific results that I'm wondering how a rational person can say otherwise.

Incidentally, let's talk about Run4.

Suppose you recorded someone screaming at the top of their lungs, "TWO PLUS TWO EQUALS!" You take that recording, and a very powerful FM transmitter, and you put it on a spaceship, and send it out in one direction.

Suppose you made another recording of someone screaming at the top of their lungs, "FOUR!" You take this second recording, and a very powerful FM transmitter set to the same frequency, and put it on a spaceship, and send it out in the opposite direction.

You have a cesium clock on both spaceships. A device is set to broadcast the recording, and this is timed such that when you tune in 20 years from now, with the spaceships being 1 light year out, you will hear all of the first recording, followed by all of the second recording.

Now time passes 20 years.

You tune into the radio station. And you hear:
"TWO PLUS TWO EQUALS! FOUR!"

Isn't that the essence of the supposed violation of physics in Run4? Perhaps it's just my ignorance, but I can't see how this violates the theory of relativity. Could you help me out?

ETA: Incidentally, yes. You recorded the guy screaming "FOUR" precisely because it was the correct answer to "TWO PLUS TWO EQUALS!". And the fact that you knew (20 years ago) that "two plus two equals" matches the answer "four" doesn't seem to violate the laws of physics either--even though you put these on radio transmitters light years away (20 years ago).

 

[!Kaggen]

Right, I will use the word "just" less.

How are you not engaging in Loki's Wager when you deliberately attempt to make consciousness impossible to define?

If it is actually fundamentally impossible to define, wth are you even arguing about?

You are confused between define and reduce.
You want consciousness reduced to something that fits into the paradigm of metaphysical materialism.
You do realise we have a definition for consciousness ?
The fact that this definition is irreducible might be difficult for your righteous metaphysical position, but that hardly makes it irrelevant.

 

[PixyMisa]

Isn't that the essence of the supposed violation of physics in Run4? Perhaps it's just my ignorance, but I can't see how this violates the theory of relativity. Could you help me out?

Yeah, as to the supposed violation of relativity: Lots of things move faster than light. Point a laser at the moon. Now waggle it back and forth. The dot will easily move fater than light. Means nothing.

Same goes for Robin's widely-separated and compartmented consciousness. All the bits put together are conscious, but you can't know that unless you either (a) know what they are in advance or (b) send signals between them to collate the information. And either of those is indeed limited by relativity.

So there's no violation of relativity involved at all.

 

[PixyMisa]

You are confused between define and reduce.
You want consciousness reduced to something that fits into the paradigm of metaphysical materialism.

We don't so much want that as have that.

You do realise we have a definition for consciousness ?

Sure. And it reduces neatly to a material process.

The fact that this definition is irreducible might be difficult for your righteous metaphysical position, but that hardly makes it irrelevant.

What are you talking about? How on Earth did you get the idea that that definition is irreducible? Just looking at the definition, even if you don't know what all the terms mean, it is clear that consciousness is defined in relation to other things (and, trickily, itself). In other words, it's self-referential information processing.

There is no problem for materialism here. None. Zero. There are enormous problems for idealism and dualism of course, but those problems were created by studiously ignoring reality in the first place.

 

[Robin]

FYI, let's get this out of the way:

Oh let's not, you take umpteen words and still don't answer the question, you just ignore it. Forget it, if you can't understand what I am saying there are others that can.

Isn't that the essence of the supposed violation of physics in Run4? Perhaps it's just my ignorance, but I can't see how this violates the theory of relativity. Could you help me out?

ETA: Incidentally, yes. You recorded the guy screaming "FOUR" precisely because it was the correct answer to "TWO PLUS TWO EQUALS!". And the fact that you knew (20 years ago) that "two plus two equals" matches the answer "four" doesn't seem to violate the laws of physics either--even though you put these on radio transmitters light years away (20 years ago).

Firstly there is no broadcast, how is the consciousness transmitted?

Secondly, are you saying that the consciousnes finally comes together 20-50 years after the run has completed????

Where?

 

[Robin]

Yeah, as to the supposed violation of relativity: Lots of things move faster than light. Point a laser at the moon. Now waggle it back and forth. The dot will easily move fater than light. Means nothing.

I will have to think about that one. Doesn't sound right. How fast does the light have to travel from the pointer to the moon for the dot to travel faster than light?

Same goes for Robin's widely-separated and compartmented consciousness. All the bits put together are conscious, but you can't know that unless you either (a) know what they are in advance or (b) send signals between them to collate the information. And either of those is indeed limited by relativity.

I see my left and my right hand.

My consciousness seems pretty collated to me.

So there's no violation of relativity involved at all.

So the information moves faster than light - by what mechanism was that?

 

[cyborg]

And the thread reaches its absurdity saturation point.

Unless you can explain why this is just more of your basic, "this is how it feels," assertions.

 

[!Kaggen]

We don't so much want that as have that.

If YOU ALL say so

Sure. And it reduces neatly to a material process.

Of course if "you all have" that already, what stops you dictating to us what else "you all have".


Except you still cannot get away from that tricky definition which defines itself

What are you talking about? How on Earth did you get the idea that that definition is irreducible? Just looking at the definition, even if you don't know what all the terms mean, it is clear that consciousness is defined in relation to other things (and, trickily, itself).

except by introducing the magical idea of

In other words, it's self-referential information processing.

There is no problem for materialism here. None. Zero. There are enormous problems for idealism and dualism of course, but those problems were created by studiously ignoring reality in the first place.

Says the information/matter dualist with plenty of experience in ignoring reality.

 

[westprog]

No, that is completely the opposite of what I am saying, you are missing the entire point.

I have said explicitly that each probe is unconnected to any other. If they were connected there would be no problem.

Part of the problem with the algorithmic definitions used is that it is so broad that in a big universe, you will have algorithms going on everywhere.

The definition is independent of the coding scheme used. Thus any coding scheme from an infinite list is equally valid. We can assign any meaning to any physical state or process.

The definition also does not require that there be any physical connection of any kind between the components of the algorithmic process. Thus any combination of any matter or energy anywhere in the universe can be interpreted in any of an infinite number of ways.

This is a lot of "self-referential information processing" going on. Probably some of it involves conscious entities, maybe as smart as us, maybe smarter, having experiences of all possible kinds. Got a thing for some actress? In some configuration of the universe, you're there, and it's just as real as what's happening to you right now. Downside is that you are also being tortured horribly.

This is, as I understand it, an inevitable consequence of the functional definition as given, but it might be possible to whittle it down a bit. One might insist that the components of the algorithmic process have some kind of physical connection with each other, so that the algorithm isn't just performed, but involves some kind of physical connection between the components. The form of the connection still being anything at all. This will whittle down the possibilities somewhat.

The nice thing about an untestable, unsupported theory is that one can tinker with it to suit one's preconceptions.

 

[westprog]

It may be a fact, but it may still be largely constructed.

~~ Paul

Constructed out of what? How does one construct a subjective experience?

There's the illusion option - that we aren't having subjective experiences, we just think we are. The problem with that theory - which is very appealing, because it just discards all the difficult areas - is that thinking you are having a subjective experience is in itself a subjective experience.

 

[westprog]

Right, I will use the word "just" less.

How are you not engaging in Loki's Wager when you deliberately attempt to make consciousness impossible to define?

If it is actually fundamentally impossible to define, wth are you even arguing about?

I don't claim it is impossible to define. I claim that it hasn't been defined.

If something is accepted to be undefined, that limits the positive assertions that you can make about it.

If something is accepted to be undefinable, that further limits the positive assertions that you can make about it.

You always have the option of producing your own arbitrary definition such as "consciousness is self-referential information processing". Actually demonstrating that this is the correct definition is the problem.

 

[Robin]

The nice thing about an untestable, unsupported theory is that one can tinker with it to suit one's preconceptions.

I am just a little taken aback by the unshakeable certainty with which the view is held.

 

[cyborg]

Constructed out of what? How does one construct a subjective experience?

The "subjective" part is superflous - one only needs worry about the "experience" part.

 

[westprog]

As far as I am concerned if a computer can pass the Turing Test then it understands and it thinks. Whether it is conscious (when observed objectively) is a pseudo problem.

I wouldn't regard the total failure of AI to approach passing the Turing test as indicating that the Turing test is a certain test of consciousness. There are people who can easily believe that a given program, no matter how trivial, is passing the Turing test.

 

[westprog]

How would you know you aren't a p-zombie. A p-zombie would believe it was conscious and would have experiences that made it believe it was conscious. That is the way it is contructed, it has everything that can be described as consciousness in terms of behavior, so it has the belief it is conscious, it has events that make it feel it is conscious, it just isn't.

That is the problem with a p-zombie.

ETA: How could anyone tell it was a p-zombie and not conscious.

It would not have beliefs or experiences. It would claim to have beliefs or experiences.

A person knows itself to be a person. An inanimate object does not. A p-zombie doesn't believe itself to be a person, because it doesn't believe anything.

 

[PixyMisa]

Constructed out of what?

Wrong question.

How does one construct a subjective experience?

Slightly better question.

Answer: Self-referential information processing.

There's the illusion option - that we aren't having subjective experiences, we just think we are.

That's a strawman.

An illusion is a real thing, but not what it appears to be. Thus, for example, we seem to have a continuous representational visual experience of the world. We don't. It's an illusion cooked up in the brain. The idea that visual experience is continuous and/or representational fails in dozens of different ways, from purely physiological ones like the blind spot and saccades to neurophysiological ones like the McCollough effect to neuropsychological ones like inattentional blindness and change blindness to abnormal neurological ones like blindsight.

Every aspect of perceptual experience, including every instance where it's not what it appears to be, traces back to purely physical processes.

The problem with that theory - which is very appealing, because it just discards all the difficult areas - is that thinking you are having a subjective experience is in itself a subjective experience.

True, but, of course, irrelevant.

 

[Robin]

Unless you can explain why this is just more of your basic, "this is how it feels," assertions.

I rarely agree with Malerin, but when someone suggests that I can't tell whether or not I am a p-zombie in denial...

 

[Robin]

By the way, by my admittedly very rough calculations, if you were to point a laser at one visible edge of the moon and if you could see the dot, then waggled it to the other visible edge then the apparent speed of the dot would be about 2.8 million metres per second, that is pretty far short of the speed of light.

It is late here - did I do that calculation wrong?

 

[westprog]

I will have to think about that one. Doesn't sound right. How fast does the light have to travel from the pointer to the moon for the dot to travel faster than light?

It's apparent motion. The dot sweeps across the moon faster than light - but the dot only exists in your mind. There are different photons, travelling at the speed of light, striking the moon and returning to your eye. No thing is moving across the face of the moon.

More importantly, no information is, or can be, transmitted faster than light. That dot cannot carry information across the moon. It can only carry information from your laser cannon to the moon.

 

[Robin]

I wouldn't regard the total failure of AI to approach passing the Turing test as indicating that the Turing test is a certain test of consciousness. There are people who can easily believe that a given program, no matter how trivial, is passing the Turing test.

I have actually watched people performing this, and the human subjects, knowing what the test is about, go out of their way to sound dim and computer like.