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

[yy2bggggs]

Oki, gotcha

You quoted me above confusing sign and intension. That's incorrect. I corrected it in my post.

 

[yy2bggggs]

f a brand of thermostat is about to be destroyed entirely, should we make efforts to prevent its extinction like with The Endangered Species Act?

That's pretty much what we do, yes. When the thermostat is doomed to extinction, it gets a special status. There are special zoos for inanimate objects of the sort with the sole purpose to preserve endangered kinds.

We call them museums.

 

[Malerin]

That's pretty much what we do, yes. When the thermostat is doomed to extinction, it gets a special status. There are special zoos for inanimate objects of the sort with the sole purpose to preserve endangered kinds.

We call them museums.

Zoos have special habitats for the animals. So to make the comparison apt, we should put the thermostat on a wall and have it hooked up to a furnace?

ETA: And if a "zoo" was found to have stashed a thermostat in, say, a box, instead of placing it in its normal thermostat "habitat", what should the penalty be?

 

[AkuManiMani]

You quoted me above confusing sign and intension. That's incorrect. I corrected it in my post.

Oh, crap. I'll get onnit right away >_<

 

[AkuManiMani]

But pragmatic value can only be established empirically

Not at all, it can also be established pragmatically.

But how can one know something works unless its demonstrated to them?

 

[yy2bggggs]

Hm...I'd have to say the former. The latter example sounds like an unconscious instinct or drive.

The concept of consciousness creating goals sounds like a misnomer to me. It makes some degree of sense in terms of cause-in-fact, but not in terms of proximate cause.

ETA: Side-note--I wasn't asking you to fix the quote, but you're welcome to do so. I don't mind being a mortal--I'm more concerned with potentially misleading people. So I noted it.

 

[AkuManiMani]

The concept of consciousness creating goals sounds like a misnomer to me. It makes some degree of sense in terms of cause-in-fact, but not in terms of proximate cause.

You mean its more accurate to think of consciousness as being something like a goal editor rather than a goal maker, right? Makes sense to me but I don't think that conscious generation of goals is ruled out. It seems that it uses drives and instincts as basic building blocks to form complex goals and behaviors that aren't themselves instinctive; like starting a business, or building a particle accelerator.

 

[Belz...]

Uhm...Yea, thats kinda my point

Well, then you're not entirely unconscious, are you ?

I'm "unconcious" when I dream but I still am aware of the outside world, to a degree, plus I'm self-aware still.

The point is that "all the rest" cannot have any certainty unless the fundamental basis [i.e. our -experience- of "all the rest"] is certain.

No, only if it's a working assumption, which it is.

Okay, moving along then...

Not so fast. Do you agree or not ?

Of course we do. You just pointed this fact out yourself:

Belz...:"You DO know that you're still processing information when you're unconscious, right ?"

What does that have to do with what you said ? You still have a subjective component when you're unconscious.

I'm saying its the best measure evolution could provide for us in this area but it still isn't fool proof. Its this very same instinct that causes children to be deceived into thinking puppets and animatronic toys are alive and sentient. The goal is to scientifically pin down the physical process that necessarily indicates consciousness, not fall back on an unreliable instinctive response that our primate ancestors've been stuck with for eons.

But ultimately the only means we DO have is behaviour. We've gotten pretty good at mapping the brain and its processes but we still don't agree on what constitutes consciousness. What makes you think more knowledge is going to give us the answer if some people don't want that answer ?

 

[yy2bggggs]

You mean its more accurate to think of consciousness as being something like a goal editor rather than a goal maker, right?

No.

What I mean is that if there were no internet, then surely you would not see a response to your post. So the internet causes responses. But it's a bit misleading to blame this response on the internet--I was the one that actually generated the response.

We're a collection of parts, all connected together. We don't become "conscious" of a thing in the sense that I'd imagine you're talking about until a bunch of various pieces of ourselves become aware of the thing. But the goals are generated by particular pieces--and they have to propagate to the rest of the pieces in order to speak of being conscious of them.

So you don't really generate goals as a "whole"--but rather, pieces of you generate the goals, and then you become aware of what the pieces generate.

The collaboration between multiple pieces only need involve the pieces that conflict--and the commitment to a particular goal only need to be a local stabilization. Neither require the entire network that you'd deem responsible for being conscious of the goal.

 

[Frank Newgent]

In the real world we do not make decisions about destroying something based on whether we think it is conscious or not.

You really don't have to look at it that way anymore now with the advent of multifunctional night-vision rifle scopes.

 

[westprog]

That is a lie, Westprog. Some people here have tried to define tests and arguments about computer consciousness since the thread began.

It's entirely pointless to theorise about computer consciousness without reference to human consciousness, and it's meaningless to define computer consciousness in isolation.

To deride the Turing test without coming up with a sensible alternative is not a good approach. And the circular reasoning of assuming that consciousness is computing in order to prove that it is computing is not a worthwhile endeavour either.

 

[westprog]

In the real world we do not make decisions about destroying something based on whether we think it is conscious or not.

Actually, most of us do. It's really only in quite limited circles that the level of consciousness in thermostats is an issue.

The ethical dilemma about removing life support from someone in a coma does revolve around their degree of consciousness, or the possibility that they will regain consciousness. The reason that we don't care about thermostats is that most people think it's unlikely that they were, are or will be conscious.

 

[westprog]

You mean its more accurate to think of consciousness as being something like a goal editor rather than a goal maker, right? Makes sense to me but I don't think that conscious generation of goals is ruled out. It seems that it uses drives and instincts as basic building blocks to form complex goals and behaviors that aren't themselves instinctive; like starting a business, or building a particle accelerator.

We may think that our conscious minds are directing events, but for all we know consciousness is a passive passenger, unable to do anything but monitor a deterministic process.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Well, then you're not entirely unconscious, are you ?

I'm "unconcious" when I dream but I still am aware of the outside world, to a degree, plus I'm self-aware still.

I'm not sure how much of my other responsive you've been following but, I've explicitly stated that I considered lucid dreaming as being a state of consciousness.

The point is that "all the rest" cannot have any certainty unless the fundamental basis [i.e. our -experience- of "all the rest"] is certain.

No, only if it's a working assumption, which it is.

Whats the "working assumption" you're referring to? That the world we observe is real or that our experience of it is real?

Okay, moving along then...

Not so fast. Do you agree or not ?

Yes, I agree. I just don't agree that consciousness is "pure computation", for reasons I've already gone over.

What does that have to do with what you said ? You still have a subjective component when you're unconscious.

Keep in mind that when I say "consciousness" I'm referring to lucid and semi-lucid states of mind, which includes waking and lucid dreaming states. In a coma or deep sleep there is no subjective component.

I'm saying its the best measure evolution could provide for us in this area but it still isn't fool proof. Its this very same instinct that causes children to be deceived into thinking puppets and animatronic toys are alive and sentient. The goal is to scientifically pin down the physical process that necessarily indicates consciousness, not fall back on an unreliable instinctive response that our primate ancestors've been stuck with for eons.

But ultimately the only means we DO have is behaviour. We've gotten pretty good at mapping the brain and its processes but we still don't agree on what constitutes consciousness. What makes you think more knowledge is going to give us the answer if some people don't want that answer ?

I really don't care if some people don't want the answer. I do.

The day we have a working theory of what physical process produces consciousness, an accurate means of explaining and predicting the quality of experiences a subject will have given a particular stimulus, and the knowledge of how to implement these capacities into an artificial system I'll be satisfied. Until then, as far as I'm concerned, people like PixyMisa are just talking outta their behinds.

 

[AkuManiMani]

We may think that our conscious minds are directing events, but for all we know consciousness is a passive passenger, unable to do anything but monitor a deterministic process.

Thats a logical possibility, but if it were true we'd be left with the problem of explaining why it evolved to begin with. It takes energy to maintain conscious states, and in humans it takes up proportionately more energy that other critters. If its really that superfluous it seems like it would have been selected against.

 

[Dancing David]

Hi !Kaggen, I had to dig back and look at the post this is inresponse too, back some 30 pages!
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5351504&postcount=1583 Your post
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5351595&postcount=1587 My response

I had to check because it has been a while, old brain.

DD I eventually found the time to work through this



We should be cautious, especially in a society with so much freedom and very little cultural boundary's. In the past whole societies functioned exclusively on unconscious figuration based on collective representations. Many still do, even in western societies re. religious fundamentalists.

Now as an aside I disagree with that, it is agreat surface impression to say that habits, social mores and cultural values deetrmine a lot of a human behavior. But there is always self interest as well, which tends to dominate.

I think that yes, our experiences and habits do influence us, but i am not sure theya re all powerfull.

I think you are using the term figuration to denote a wide variety of responses, and I do understand what you mean now. I just happen , as usual to have a different POV.

We can free ourselves from unconscious figuration and can now consciously direct figuration using the scientific method.

I think I understand that now, the scientific method does allow for testing of validity in some very specific ways and it has stripped the cultural values in a lot of ways. I think that cultural anthropology has as much to do with it is as the scienitific method however, but as you have pointed out it is very challenging to many people to call them on their cultural biases. Here in the US there is a very strong reaction to what pundits want to refer to as relativism, or cultural relativism.

More later

 

[AkuManiMani]

You mean its more accurate to think of consciousness as being something like a goal editor rather than a goal maker, right?

No.

What I mean is that if there were no internet, then surely you would not see a response to your post. So the internet causes responses. But it's a bit misleading to blame this response on the internet--I was the one that actually generated the response.

We're a collection of parts, all connected together. We don't become "conscious" of a thing in the sense that I'd imagine you're talking about until a bunch of various pieces of ourselves become aware of the thing. But the goals are generated by particular pieces--and they have to propagate to the rest of the pieces in order to speak of being conscious of them.

So you don't really generate goals as a "whole"--but rather, pieces of you generate the goals, and then you become aware of what the pieces generate.

The collaboration between multiple pieces only need involve the pieces that conflict--and the commitment to a particular goal only need to be a local stabilization. Neither require the entire network that you'd deem responsible for being conscious of the goal.

This is basically just a rephrased and elaborated version of what I've already said:

AMM: "Makes sense to me but I don't think that conscious generation of goals is ruled out. It seems that it uses drives and instincts as basic building blocks to form complex goals and behaviors that aren't themselves instinctive; like starting a business, or building a particle accelerator."

[Notice that what you call "particular pieces" I referred to as "basic building blocks"]

An apparent function of consciousness is to coordinate and redirect basic impulses of our nervous system for novel uses. Our motivations are based upon much simpler innate drives and our goals are consciously formed from them.

So a person may be motivated to search for food based upon the basic impulse to eat, but their consciousness recognizes this impulse as the feeling of "hunger" [an example of qualia] and forms a goal and a plan of action to obtain food from a particular restaurant, read a recipe to make their own dinner, etc. The specific goals and plans aren't innate neural programs but novel responses formed from basic programs by the subject's conscious mind.

 

[Belz...]

It's entirely pointless to theorise about computer consciousness without reference to human consciousness, and it's meaningless to define computer consciousness in isolation.

To deride the Turing test without coming up with a sensible alternative is not a good approach. And the circular reasoning of assuming that consciousness is computing in order to prove that it is computing is not a worthwhile endeavour either.

Who's deriding the Turing test besides you guys ?

So, yes. It's almost inconceivable to talk about consciousness without reference to humans, but the only thing we know about human consciousness is the associated set of behaviours.

 

[Belz...]

I'm not sure how much of my other responsive you've been following but, I've explicitly stated that I considered lucid dreaming as being a state of consciousness.

Well... ok. But then you're still computing at that point, aren't you ? So far I see no reason to exclude mere computation as the "source" of consciousness.

Whats the "working assumption" you're referring to? That the world we observe is real or that our experience of it is real?

That the consistence of observation is good enough to reach conclusions about how the perceived reality operates.

Keep in mind that when I say "consciousness" I'm referring to lucid and semi-lucid states of mind, which includes waking and lucid dreaming states. In a coma or deep sleep there is no subjective component.

What do you mean by "subjective component", then ? The impression of self is still there.

I really don't care if some people don't want the answer. I do.

Careful, now. Answers have already been proposed and so far you've rejected them. What makes you think you'd accept any further proposition ?

 

[Belz...]

Thats a logical possibility

Well, recent discoveries seem to point in that direction.

but if it were true we'd be left with the problem of explaining why it evolved to begin with.

It may just be an annoying side-effect.

It takes energy to maintain conscious states, and in humans it takes up proportionately more energy that other critters. If its really that superfluous it seems like it would have been selected against.

If it's just a side-effect of the complexities of the human computing power, then it would be irrelevant to selection.