Are You Conscious?

[Malerin]

I'm new here and I thought perhaps you found my arguments so preposterous that you were asking the question to poke fun at my intelligence - or lack of same ;-)

I treat the question as a foundational one. If someone is unsure they're conscious, there's such a disconnect between what they believe and what I believe, further discussion would be useless. There are people here who actually think they might be P-zombies. How do you even begin a discussion of consciousness with a person like that?

 

[Frank Newgent]

Something tells me he won't be sufficiently impressed by the judge and jury and neither am I.

And what have I accomplished if I beat "him" and won the argument and he stops posting? In whose eyes? Did I persuade him to consider new ideas and reconsider his own? Did I help you to explore some new truth or simply act as a sycophant to reinforce yours? Perhaps there is someone who was on the fence lurking who weighed the arguments on both sides and found my arguments most persuasive. But it apparently didn't mean enough to them to bother posting to thank me for offering them some new insight or idea or to offer ideas of their own.

So Hoorah for me!

Wait, at least UE showed some doubt and vulnerability and was, if grudging, prepared to acknowledge the weaknesses in his own arguments as I did. A huge improvement over the UE I knew at Dawkins. But perhaps he was so embattled there he felt he could show no weakness lest he be pounded into the dust for it.

As Sam Harris said, "without doubt there can be no dialogue". Although I will admit to ego-centric enjoyment in the sport of debate I much prefer engaging in real dialogue. On that score, I find UE a much more enjoyable adversary than you. With you, I get the feeling that there is nothing I could ever say to change your mind. If I'm wrong I apologize. I'm a newbie and maybe my conclusion is premature.. But I see you have 1000's of posts here. Maybe you could point me to a few to where you changed your mind on a topic of major significance to you. Or are you the smartest guy here?

This is so refreshing. Thank you.

ETA: This is not sarcasm. Actually tried to PM this but FedUpWithFaith doesn't have mailbox space.

 

[Robin]

Materialism leads to a situation where information-processing and subjective experience have to be logically identical, yet conceptually there is no apparent logical connection.

Materialism does not imply that information-processing and subjective experience have to be logically identical.

Computationalism implies that information-processing and subjective experience have to be logically identical - let's get our terms right.

Just to be clear what this means, there is a logical connection between the properties "being a square" and "having four sides". It is an a-priori, conceptual connection.

Well no, it is a definition, which is different to there being an a-priori logical connection.

It's also unclear to me why you think there could be any sort of logical necessity here at all. To take another example, there is a connection between having wings and being able to fly, but it's not a logically-necessary connection - there are winged things that can't fly and flying things which have no wings.

And do you think, by analogy, that there is something which is conscious and does not process information?

Do you think that it is even in principle possible that something could be conscious and not process information?

 

[westprog]

With you, I get the feeling that there is nothing I could ever say to change your mind. If I'm wrong I apologize. I'm a newbie and maybe my conclusion is premature.. But I see you have 1000's of posts here. Maybe you could point me to a few to where you changed your mind on a topic of major significance to you. Or are you the smartest guy here?

It's not even a matter of changing one's mind. I don't suppose that happens that often. It's a matter of engaging with the arguments against one's position and finding a way of addressing them.

 

[westprog]

Materialism does not imply that information-processing and subjective experience have to be logically identical.

Computationalism implies that information-processing and subjective experience have to be logically identical - let's get our terms right.

The two are certainly not the same, and may even be contradictory. Computationalism doesn't seem to have much of the material about it.

Well no, it is a definition, which is different to there being an a-priori logical connection.

And do you think, by analogy, that there is something which is conscious and does not process information?

Do you think that it is even in principle possible that something could be conscious and not process information?

Is it possible to exist in the universe and not process information?

 

[Robin]

The two are certainly not the same, and may even be contradictory.

I didn't suggest they were the same - I was making a distinction. UE had ascribed the computationalist viewpoint to Materialism - I was correcting the record.

Computationalism doesn't seem to have much of the material about it.

Certainly computationalism does seem to imply the possibility of a disembodied consciousness.

Is it possible to exist in the universe and not process information?

OK, good point, I will have to give it some thought.

 

[FedUpWithFaith]

It's not even a matter of changing one's mind. I don't suppose that happens that often. It's a matter of engaging with the arguments against one's position and finding a way of addressing them.

That's a perfectly reasonable POV. As a scientist, when I present a hypothesis I put it "out there" precisely to get a critique and find weaknesses that either enable me to hone my theory or discard it. But I've had to deal with some bad scientists who fall too much in love with their ideas and create barriers rather than bridges to doing either one. And non-scientists can be even worse.

I know how to tell the difference between real dialogue and scoring debate points. And I know how ego can drive or obfuscate both objectives. I just like to know who I'm arguing with so I don't set false expectations and waste time.

Forums are a place for learning and entertainment. Those who prefer scoring debate points over real dialogue are engaging in a perfectly legitimate exercise. I've done so myself. I simply ask that people not allow their ego-drive to win or at least not lose to tarnish the quality of debate. My original reply to Pixy in the face of him "notifying" UE (and us) that UE lost the argument was because I found it unhelpful to continuing dialogue.

I'm often much more interested in how people think than what they think. Regardless of who was right or wrong about what, I was learning a lot about how UE thinks. And for the first time he was becoming comfortable having a more genuine dialogue with me. I have now been forced to continue that off-line where the rest of you who may have had similar curiosity and benefited from further insight can no longer access it.

I'm new to this forum so I realize I don't have much status nor perhaps sufficient experience to critique it. What I do know is it takes some courage for people like UE to come to a place of ultimate skepticism and make their case as it did at Dawkins which eventually self-destructed from being perhaps the finest and most open rationalist forum I'd ever witnessed to, in relative terms, a herd of atheist sycophants down-shouters (that may seem an overly brutal assessment for those there now if you didn't see what it was like before the schism of August-October 2008).

Despite some qualms I find this forum to have many if not most of the advantages I enjoyed in the pre-schism Dawkins forum. It looks like a great community so far. Please forgive me if I may be a little oversensitive on certain issues. As I get to know people better here I don't think I'll be too much of a thorn in everybody's ass. But my forum persona is a bit of a curmudgeon.

 

[Robin]

What I do know is it takes some courage for people like UE to come to a place of ultimate skepticism and make their case as it did at Dawkins which eventually self-destructed from being perhaps the finest and most open rationalist forum I'd ever witnessed to, in relative terms, a herd of atheist sycophants down-shouters (that may seem an overly brutal assessment for those there now if you didn't see what it was like before the schism of August-October 2008).

I would question the statement's accuracy, rather than it's brutality.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Despite the pseudoscience I think you've bought into a quantum computer probably doesn't offer this property either - though the superposition of states potentially offers some insights and potential solutions to the self-referentiality concepts I've been trying to explain to you.

I assume you're referring to Penrose and Hammeroff. Not only do just about all neuroscientists dismiss them (yes, I know, not a good argument) but there isn't a shred of evidence so far to support their conjectures (a better argument) and moreover, ironically, Tegmark is one of the main physicists who demonstrated mathematically that Penrose's supposedly plausible mechanisms are, in fact, not possible or, in the least extemely implausible (a strong argument). There is really nothing to hang your hat on there Geoff. Look elsewhere, like the recurrent neural network paper I cited earlier on hypercomputation. Though I don't believe a word of what I'm about to tell you, there are conceptually interesting (I'm too timid to say plausible) and almost aethetically appealing connections between that and your 0/infinity ideas based on the intrinsic need and symmetry of 0/infinity in creating oracles (a technical term in the hypercomputation realm) for computing indecidable propositions. I bet if you study that stuff you'll find much more to resonate with your thinking including free will, than the quantum stuff. Start with wikipedia, they seem to have a decent intro.

Wikipedia entry on what, exactly? I did a quick search and found some stuff I didn't really understand. I get the basic idea, though.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I would question the statement's accuracy, rather than it's brutality.

I don't remember you from Dawkins' forum. Perhaps I'm going senile...

How much do you know about what happened?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

And do you think, by analogy, that there is something which is conscious and does not process information?

No.

Do you think that it is even in principle possible that something could be conscious and not process information?

No.

 

[FedUpWithFaith]

Wikipedia entry on what, exactly? I did a quick search and found some stuff I didn't really understand. I get the basic idea, though.

Try these. But if you have the stomach for it also research their references too. Wikipedia is way too superficial here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercomputer
http://binds.cs.umass.edu/papers/1996_Siegelmann_TheorCompSci.pdf

I have a colleague who claims he's reviewed a new revolutionary book/treatise coming out on the topic, but I'll believe it when I see it since I think "hype" is the key word in "hypercomputers". If it passes muster I'll start a thread on it here at JREF somewhere. I'm no expert in this area so I'd appreciate other's input.

BTW, ever since my PM box filled up and I emptied it I've tried to send you my email address three times. I got least two requests from you I replied to. If you didn't get it please just send me your email address next time and I'll email you directly. I wrote a long reply to your last long PM and I haven't been able to send it due to character limits either.

I don't know what's wrong.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Try these. But if you have the stomach for it also research their references too. Wikipedia is way too superficial here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercomputer
http://binds.cs.umass.edu/papers/1996_Siegelmann_TheorCompSci.pdf

I have a colleague who claims he's reviewed a new revolutionary book/treatise coming out on the topic, but I'll believe it when I see it since I think "hype" is the key word in "hypercomputers". If it passes muster I'll start a thread on it here at JREF somewhere. I'm no expert in this area so I'd appreciate other's input.

BTW, ever since my PM box filled up and I emptied it I've tried to send you my email address three times. I got least two requests from you I replied to. If you didn't get it please just send me your email address next time and I'll email you directly. I wrote a long reply to your last long PM and I haven't been able to send it due to character limits either.

I don't know what's wrong.

I got your PM and sent a "Hi" message to your email address.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Fedup,

http://binds.cs.umass.edu/papers/199...eorCompSci.pdf

OK, I had a look at that and got mathematics overload quite quickly. Can you summarise how you think this stuff is related to the debate we are having in this thread?

Geoff

 

[FedUpWithFaith]

Fedup,



OK, I had a look at that and got mathematics overload quite quickly. Can you summarise how you think this stuff is related to the debate we are having in this thread?

Geoff

I must not have made myself clear Geoff but you're asking me to take the side of the debate I don't believe in. I was simply trying to introduce you to some ideas and admittedly fringe science that I thought you would find fascinating that may resonate better and be more useful in building a basic framework for your ideas that is more coherent, comprehensive, and less fringe than the one you currently seem to subscribe to and I think you would admit, is very loosey goosey in various respects -almost like grasping at straws..

Normally, I'm happy to switch sides in a debate and to argue the other side as fiercely as my own convictions. But I'd prefer not to do that as a newbie yet with new people coming to this thread from holiday break, who might not realize this and forevermore confuse my position with yours.

I would be willing to do this by PM though. You've taken time to try to teach me your personal mysticism offline so this is the least I can do. The only problem is then neither of us will benefit from the critiques of others who may be as, or more, knowledgeable about this stuff. As I said earlier, I have struggled myself with a number of hypercomputer concepts so there is only so much I can teach you.

I just emailed you BTW.

 

[Limbo]

I view consciousness as a form of data compression that acts at the tip of the iceberg of our mental processes.

Ok. So let's use your iceberg analogy and see where we end up. There is a part of the iceberg above the water and a part below the water. The tip above the water is consciousness, we are aware of it. The bulk of the iceberg below the water is unconscious mental processes. Everything below the water is below the threshold of conscious awareness. Ok so far?

Let's call the totality of the iceberg, both above and below the water the psyche. Unless you don't like that word either? I'm open to an appropriate word of your choice.

The center of gravity of the iceberg-psyche would be below the water, correct? Below the threshold of conscious awareness. After all, only the tiny tip is above water. So let's call the underwater center of the psyche the Self. Or the Atman, if you and UE don't object. Again I'm open to an appropriate word of your choice. I'm just trying to find common ground through your analogy.

Before I go on I'll wait to see if there are any objections so far.

 

[Robin]

I don't remember you from Dawkins' forum. Perhaps I'm going senile...

How much do you know about what happened?

You were a mod there weren't you? I do remember you were treated quite fairly, even, in my opinion, rather favourably in one case where you suspended a guy you were having a disagreement with.

 

[Robin]

No.

So the "wings/flying" analogy is not really apt then.

 

[FedUpWithFaith]

You [UndercoverElephant] were a mod there weren't you? I do remember you were treated quite fairly, even, in my opinion, rather favourably in one case where you suspended a guy you were having a disagreement with.

So who were/are you at Dawkins? I don't recall a Robin either other than SciWoman's real name which she used for time to time. Plus I don't remember her posting in the Philosophy section much.

 

[PixyMisa]

Something tells me he won't be sufficiently impressed by the judge and jury and neither am I.

I see no reason why I or anyone should care how impressed he is.

When you abandon logic, you lose the argument. It's that simple. You can keep talking, but you are no longer arguing.

And what have I accomplished if I beat "him" and won the argument and he stops posting?

Nothing. I didn't say you'd won; just that he's lost. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. Abandon logic, and you are no longer arguing; you've lost.

In whose eyes? Did I persuade him to consider new ideas and reconsider his own? Did I help you to explore some new truth or simply act as a sycophant to reinforce yours? Perhaps there is someone who was on the fence lurking who weighed the arguments on both sides and found my arguments most persuasive. But it apparently didn't mean enough to them to bother posting to thank me for offering them some new insight or idea or to offer ideas of their own.

None of that. He's just lost.

Wait, at least UE showed some doubt and vulnerability and was, if grudging, prepared to acknowledge the weaknesses in his own arguments as I did.

That's nice. He's got me on ignore. Every so often he stops by to remind me of this.

A huge improvement over the UE I knew at Dawkins. But perhaps he was so embattled there he felt he could show no weakness lest he be pounded into the dust for it.

By the sounds of things, he is far more embattled here than there.

As Sam Harris said, "without doubt there can be no dialogue".

Likewise without reason.

Although I will admit to ego-centric enjoyment in the sport of debate I much prefer engaging in real dialogue. On that score, I find UE a much more enjoyable adversary than you.

Oh, it's easy to get me to change my mind. Happens all the time. Just present evidence I wasn't previously aware of. Given the range of knowledge of the posters here, this isn't hard. I'm a computer programmer, and reasonably well informed on that fairly broad subject, but in psychology I'm just an interested layman, where we have several working psychologists posting here, and what they've posted has helped shape my ideas. Likewise Steven Novella's blog (he's a clinical neurologist). Likewise the MIT Introduction to Psychology lecture series that I'm constantly recommending (given by Prof. Jeremy Wolfe, whose field is visual perception). Likewise thousands of sources on hundreds of topics.

Simply insisting over and over that I must accept a particular ill-defined concept as fact doesn't do it. Well, I haven't yet read your latest post on that, so we'll see!

With you, I get the feeling that there is nothing I could ever say to change your mind. If I'm wrong I apologize. I'm a newbie and maybe my conclusion is premature.. But I see you have 1000's of posts here. Maybe you could point me to a few to where you changed your mind on a topic of major significance to you. Or are you the smartest guy here?

Even were I the smartest guy here - which seems unlikely just on the basis of probability, even if we consider intelligence a scalar quantity, which it isn't - that doesn't matter because other posters would still know more than me in their own fields of interest, something they frequently demonstrate, and a major reason it is worthwhile posting here. Since my ideas have already been hammered on for seven years here and prior to that on Usenet and such, this is usually not an instance of me being flatly wrong about a major concept (though that has happened), more often that someone comes up with an example I wasn't aware of or a better way to explain something - the moment when someone says in a dozen words what I've been trying to say for a dozen posts.

And even if I don't end up agreeing with you, if you present your case logically you can certainly make me think and alter my argument. Robin in a recent thread had a thought experiment relating to the continuity of consciousness, and by sticking to his guns he made me see that my initial response was inadequate. And even where there's broad agreement (consciousness is most definitely a physical process, and any argument to the contrary had better bring a whole boatload of independently confirmed experimental data to the table before it even begins) there's plenty of disagreement on the details and definitions. For example, I consider reflective computer programs to be conscious. The do, after all, precisely exhibit Hofstadter's strange loop and the very behaviours that we use to define consciousness. You apparently don't; I don't yet know why, but unless you put me on ignore we'll soon work that out.