Are You Conscious?

[PixyMisa]

ETA: What is this thing supposed to do Pixy?

This.

It's conscious. It's not a chat bot, which can be achieved without consciousness.

 

[westprog]

Perhaps you might consider that this is because he is actually correct.

Since his assertion is palpably ludicrous I don't feel the need to consider its potential implications.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Really? How does subjective experience figure in the stimulus-response arc? What function does it fulfill?

Are you suggesting that it is even theoretically possible for organisms such as us in our environment -- both hostile to general living and social -- to survive by means of stimulus-response? I know you are smarter than that, so what exactly is your point? You are aware of combinatorial explosion?

 

[westprog]

This is true of behaviorism far in the past but not today. I don't think anyone thinks like that any longer.

The only issue with the behavioral approach is that if we want to have any access on any level to what goes on in someone else's experience, the only approach we have is to examine their behavior.

We postulate other minds and what happens within them. We can't know with absolute confidence anything that happens in other minds as they experience them. I think we all know this.

I think you're expressing the view of behaviourists in the outside world, but on JREF? I'm not sure.

 

[PixyMisa]

Really? How does subjective experience figure in the stimulus-response arc?

It's merely the internal perspective of the stimulus-response arc.

What function does it fulfill?

It's merely the internal perspective of the stimulus-response arc.

 

[PixyMisa]

Since his assertion is palpably ludicrous I don't feel the need to consider its potential implications.

Ah, I see.

So your assertion is that everyone who knows anything about any of the fields involved is not merely wrong about their own area of expertise, but laughably so?

Would you care to actually point out where rocketdodger and everyone else who knows what they are talking about are incorrect, and in what way, and what your evidence for this is?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Your point is well taken. Sometimes I have been a little sloppy or have not explicitly defined all my terms - more do to laziness and the fact that I'm already spending a lot of time on this.

I think I said consciousness was not a "thing" before but I don't think I used the word "entity". I realize you may disagree but in the way I meant "entity" it has wider meaning and can be a thing or a process. I'm trying to find agnostic words to describe such things wherever I lack certainty and "entity" was at my fingertips.

Frankly I have a problem with any definition of consciousness that relies purely on "thing", "process", or "abstraction" and that's why some of my conclusions and speculations, at least those about qualia, may look somewhat self-contradictory at times. The reason for this is because we do not yet know enough about consciousness to know how reductive our definition or explanation can be. In this sense, if you believe that there is only a "whole" to consciousness and that it can have no functional partly-conscious working parts than you have to commit to it being a process or a thing. And in such debate I come down squarely on process. However I do believe consciousness may have pieces. Its like the old argument "when does the chair cease to be a chair".

While SRIPs are processes their individual computing steps are not. Neither is the I/O that is recursively fed through the system. One can dissect many types of processes into states that are really things aren't they? Don't believe me? Dissect running. Define it to me without referring to the relative positions and trajectories (also things) of particular parts (joints, muscles, etc.). As I argued in a previous posts, there are ways that nouns can become verbs and vice versa depending on you avenue of reductionism.

Damn, man, you're not allowed to use all my own examples back at me!

Yes, agreed. I don't like any use of nouns when referring to consciousness, but I do it all the time, since it really should be a verb; I mention it to you largely because I have to remind myself all the time. The first time I told this to UE he considered it hilarious; don't know if he's changed his tune.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I think you're expressing the view of behaviourists in the outside world, but on JREF? I'm not sure.

It is expressly the viewpoint of Mercutio and Jeff Corey -- the only two behaviorists I know on this forum. There may be some people who express old behaviorist notions here, I don't really know since I'm not paying that much attention to this thread; but I don't think it fair to make any sort of blanket statement about behaviorists. Not that this is much of a point -- just a gentle reminder.

 

[Frank Newgent]

ETA: What is this thing supposed to do Pixy?

This.

It's conscious. It's not a chat bot, which can be achieved without consciousness.

Please show me what SHRDLU does that expresses consciousness.

This is not an answer.

 

[PixyMisa]

Please show me what SHRDLU does that expresses consciousness.

It analyses and reports on its own behaviour and reasoning in response to questions.

This is not an answer.

Yes, in fact it is.

Read through the conversation. Then tell me what it is that you attribute to consciousness that is not displayed by SHRDLU. Something along the lines of "All conscious beings do X, and SHRDLU does not exhibit X." And please define X as precisely as you can.

That's all I'm asking for. It's all I've been asking for all along. So far, I haven't got a single cogent answer.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Finally! Something we differ on

I disagree with your assessment that consciousness is a "self-perceived abstraction". For one thing, consciousness begins with the perception of any object, whether they be external or one's self. Also, IMO, its not an abstraction any more than the individual firing of brain cells is an abstraction. Its a concrete phenomenon with essential characteristics inherent to it.

I'd say that the only 'illusions' are our individual interpretations and understandings of the objects we perceive, which will always be incomplete and imperfect. The actual process of perception itself is undeniably real and the sine non qua our existence as subjects and our knowledge of the world.

This is something I'd like to argue about with you on several levels because it has deeper philosophical implications as well. You're going to have to convince me that perception itself is not an abstraction process. Actually, since you believe perception is a computational process, as I do, you're going to have to explain to me how computation is not abstraction. It relies completely on mathematics and symbols or signals and nothing more. Yes, the substrate for computation, in this case the brain/neurons, is "real" but its also mutable and irrelevant. I can simulate a computer simulating a computed ad infinitum if I wanted to to serve as brain substrate. I'm not arguing that mind isn't ultimately dependent on the physical.

When we observe something we are not, in philosophical or real terms, experiencing "the thing in itself". We are experiencing a representation or model of that thing computed by our perception. That "thing" is nothing more than equations (that's a simplification but you know what I mean) in your brain and the degree to which those equations "mirror" reality depends on the quality of functioning. We have all been fooled by our senses and there are many optical illusions I could show you to prove this. This is what Kant called "the veil of perception".

Consider a photograph of a tree. I'd consider the picture of the tree to be an "illusion" in the same sense I described consciousness as an illusion, which is basically a representation that can be potentially distorted and to which there is no guarantee or even possibility of capturing everything in the essense of the object being observed/photographed. A photo of a tree is not the tree itself. It could be out of focus or the colors could be off - even inverted on the complementary color wheel (reds to greens etc). Of course, our minds effortlessly and unconsciously recognize the degree of clarity and color integrity assuming they're functioning properly. In the "world" of the photograph (pretend it was conscious), the inverted-color image is how it would naturally experience its qualia and frankly, it would be no better or worse than ours. In that sense the representation has to be like an illusion, otherwise you'd have to prove to me that anything conscious in the universe perceives what you do exactly as you do. You can't even prove I do.

I would say that Kant's 'veil of perception' is an integral part of objective reality. Sure, our perceptions serve as representations an impressions of external objects. Of course, our mental image of a tree is not identical to the observed tree. What I'm saying is that qualia -- subjective experiences -- are objects in-and-of-themselves. They happen in response to vertical objective occurrences and, in turn, form the basis of our volition and conscious choices, thus effecting external objects.

The phenomenal is noumenal.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Please show me what SHRDLU does that expresses consciousness.

It analyses and reports on its own behaviour and reasoning in response to questions.

Please show me.

 

[Malerin]

It analyses and reports on its own behaviour and reasoning in response to questions.


Yes, in fact it is.

Read through the conversation. Then tell me what it is that you attribute to consciousness that is not displayed by SHRDLU. Something along the lines of "All conscious beings do X, and SHRDLU does not exhibit X." And please define X as precisely as you can.

X = the slightest inkling of intelligence?

Quote:
READY
may we talk?

*SORRY I DON'T KNOW THE WORD " MAY ".
PLEASE TYPE <LF> AND CONTINUE THE SENTENCE.
READY
what words do you know?

*SORRY I DON'T KNOW THE WORD " WORDS ".
PLEASE TYPE <LF> AND CONTINUE THE SENTENCE.
READY
WHAT do you know?
KNOWKNOWI DON'T UNDERSTAND.
READY
you don't understand what?

*SORRY I DON'T KNOW THE WORD " DONT ".
PLEASE TYPE <LF> AND CONTINUE THE SENTENCE.
READY
YOU feel good now?

*SORRY I DON'T KNOW THE WORD " FEEL ".
PLEASE TYPE <LF> AND CONTINUE THE SENTENCE.
READY
YOU are conscious?

*SORRY I DON'T KNOW THE WORD " CONSCIOUS ".
PLEASE TYPE <LF> AND CONTINUE THE SENTENCE.
READY
YOU ARE happy?

*SORRY I DON'T KNOW THE WORD " HAPPY ".
PLEASE TYPE <LF> AND CONTINUE THE SENTENCE.
READY
YOU ARE a '96 Saturn?

*SORRY I DON'T KNOW THE WORD " SATURN ".
PLEASE TYPE <LF> AND CONTINUE THE SENTENCE.
READY

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I would say that Kant's 'veil of perception' is an integral part of objective reality. Sure, our perceptions serve as representations an impressions of external objects. Of course, our mental image of a tree is not identical to the observed tree. What I'm saying is that qualia -- subjective experiences -- are objects in-and-of-themselves. They happen in response to vertical objective occurrences and, in turn, form the basis of our volition and conscious choices, thus effecting external objects.

The phenomenal is noumenal.

How does being interposed between veridical occurrence and volition forge something as an object-in-and-of-itself?

I'm sorry, but this looks like opinion with nothing much to back it up.

 

[annnnoid]

Am I conscious? If I were, I would know it (is that, actually, the right answer?).

…..so I could, for my first post, step timidly into the shallow end and test the waters….quiet, demure, diffident, meek (didn’t someone somewhere say I’d inherit the earth….sounds like good policy).

….but I’ll be a little more brazen and risk getting chopped up (cause there are obviously some very smart dudes at this place). Hopefully, at the least, I can introduce a snippet of entertainment.

What is consciousness? Sorry, but who the bleep cares?....and I use the short-form expletive quite intentionally (with all due respect to the powers that be). I’ve read that this has been one of the most dominant issues at these forums virtually since they began. I’m not suggesting that the exploration of this question is by any means irrelevant. Obviously, it is the second most important question that exists for the human race. The question that really matters though is the first?....what is human truth? I guess it would be hard to argue which question would be more difficult to even ask, let alone answer (and yes, I do realize that they are not so easily differentiated).

An interesting hypothetical issue does arise though. As we pursue this scientific quest for an understanding of what is referred to as consciousness, will our consciousness achieve an equivalently illuminated insight into the truth of its own experience of itself. For example, lets say Dennet at some point resolves some fundamental issue and actually manages to explain consciousness (his own included)….what are the potential consequences for his own consciousness upon apparently discovering the ‘truth’ of itself (we will assume a definitive explanation to be the equivalent of the truth [I suppose we could also ask….is there such a thing as a definitive explanation for consciousness that can be known outside of human truth?....oh how the issues do become cluttered])? Will Dennet ‘implode’….or ‘expand’….or become a Dennet deity….(I’m obviously being facetious here, but there are just as obviously some rather peculiar issues on the horizon….however distant that may be). I recall a neurologist sometime ago who received a substantial grant (something around a million bucks) to specifically study the neurological activity of philosophers (I’d have to dig to find the exact details….UBC I think)….folks whose raison d’etre is (arguably) to study our (and their) relationship with truth (almost sounds….religious). The implication being that, perhaps the experience of the exploration of truth has somehow some kind of distinct neurological consequences (compared to the neurological imprint of scoundrels or idiots….[or evolutionary biologists…. or neurologists who study the neurology of philosophers]?).

This sounds somewhat academic but is far from it. Seeing as how this is my first post at the site I’ll be reasonably brief but as I see it there is information and there is insight. From the looks of it, what this strategically imperiled world requires is the insight to use the information it has, cause there seems to be no shortage of it (information). Insight is human truth….and how do we identify that (or can it be?) in the landscape of the various theories of consciousness that are presented at these forums and elsewhere? The following quote from Noam Chomsky (with a few helpful remarks [in parenthesis] of my own) I think pertains to this issue:

“….It should be obvious to everyone (except, apparently, certain atheists….sorry, I couldn’t resist) that by and large science reaches deep explanatory theories to the extent that it narrows its gaze. If a problem is too hard for physicists, they hand it over to chemists, and so on down the line until it ends with people who try to deal somehow with human affairs, where scientific understanding is very thin, and is likely to remain so, except in a few areas that can be abstracted for special studies.

On the ordinary problems of human life, science tells us very little, and scientists as people are surely no guide (d’you think he might actually have had Richard Dawkins in mind when he said this?), because they often focus, laser-like, on their professional interests and know very little about the world…”

(just a note about this quote….I did have the opportunity to ask him whether he might wish to qualify the remarks in any way [considering the context of the event where he made them] and he replied that the words mean exactly what they say [I include this note only because I have on occasion been accused of presenting the quote out of context])


Another example (of the yawning chasm between insight and information): In a single moment/detail of anyone’s life (mine, yours….Sarah Palin’s even) there exists electro-bio-chemical realities of exponential orders of magnitude (metaphorically and literally)….not to mention the (as we can see from these forums) virtually incomprehensible orders of magnitude that describe the complexities of our being (‘what is the measure of a man’ and all that….essentially we are something vast, complex, incomprehensible, and mysterious). And how do we ‘bodies’ experience this virtually immeasurable mystery???? ….’damn, I broke my fingernail’….or….’was that good for you honey?’….or….’buy one big mac and….SUPERSIZE ME’….or….’so what is consciousness anyway?’….ad infinitum. It could quite reasonably be said that the only thing greater than our ignorance, is how ignorant we are of it (occasionally some errant soul becomes enlightened and shouts out “holy babel batman….did you know that the more I know, the more I realize I don’t know…..did you know that?”).

Essentially, the monumental conceit that our life is, well, ours is pure illusion (not the conceit, the conviction). We have not created, and do not create, one iota of our existence (well, barely….though we have yet to recognize an accurate approach to ‘measuring’ those we do ‘create’). We are entirely a function of one word…’faith’, whether we like it or not, and we are responsible for only one thing, responsibility (to the degree that we can capably account for what there is to capably account for [psychological dilemmas notwithstanding]). So basically, however much we may ignore, deny, or protest the fact….it is still an indisputable fact: we don’t have a freakin clue what we are or what is actually going on in the life of each and every one of us at this very moment (as for ‘who’ we are, there are similarly insurmountable issues involved). Scientifically speaking, we are children. Barely literate and profoundly ignorant (I once came to the perplexing conclusion that we use words so we can avoid having to face the fact that we don’t know what we’re talking about…..unfortunately I often cannot recall exactly what I recognized in it [denial is not a river in Egypt I guess]). Quite literally. We are the children of the universe that keeps us alive (or are you the one who makes yourself breath, or creates the ability for you to think, or feel….obviously not [the only issue then becomes, what actually is this ‘universe’ that ‘lives’ us….and what is our relationship with it; unavoidably religious sounding questions]). The degree to which we are able to relate to the ‘child’ metaphor or the ‘the more I know the more I don’t’ metaphor is quite specifically a function of our capacity for human truth.

So what is human truth (apparently there is such a thing, or, at the very least, an identifiable trajectory that implicates it)? Do these explorations of consciousness theory reveal it? If so, how? If not, what does (lots of generalizations and big questions….interpret liberally)?

….and finally, a snippet of insight (human truth if you want….though rather scientific sounding) I stumbled across a while back. With all due respect, I’m going to refrain from including the details of the author (it’s not me….though if there’s one observation I would be happy to implicitly understand it would certainly be this one). I realize that being a neophyte at this site I may be taking some liberties but in this case I think the quote can stand for itself.

“destruction is finding being in matter”

…written a few years ago by an individual who was quite likely conscious.

 

[AkuManiMani]

it analyses and reports on its own behaviour and reasoning in response to questions.


Yes, in fact it is.

Read through the conversation. Then tell me what it is that you attribute to consciousness that is not displayed by shrdlu. Something along the lines of "all conscious beings do x, and shrdlu does not exhibit x." and please define x as precisely as you can.

x = the slightest inkling of intelligence?

quote:
Ready
may we talk?

*sorry i don't know the word " may ".
Please type <lf> and continue the sentence.
Ready
what words do you know?

*sorry i don't know the word " words ".
Please type <lf> and continue the sentence.
Ready
what do you know?
Knowknowi don't understand.
Ready
you don't understand what?

*sorry i don't know the word " dont ".
Please type <lf> and continue the sentence.
Ready
you feel good now?

*sorry i don't know the word " feel ".
Please type <lf> and continue the sentence.
Ready
you are conscious?

*sorry i don't know the word " conscious ".
Please type <lf> and continue the sentence.
Ready
you are happy?

*sorry i don't know the word " happy ".
Please type <lf> and continue the sentence.
Ready
you are a '96 saturn?

*sorry i don't know the word " saturn ".
Please type <lf> and continue the sentence.
Ready

rofl

 

[AkuManiMani]

How does being interposed between veridical occurrence and volition forge something as an object-in-and-of-itself?

I'm sorry, but this looks like opinion with nothing much to back it up.

I'm going to ask you a simple rhetorical question:

Do you exist?

 

[FedUpWithFaith]

I would say that Kant's 'veil of perception' is an integral part of objective reality.

I can agree with that but it still doesn't contradict me. You and I may be saying similar things from different perpectives. I could take the position of an idealist and semantically transform all my explanation to fit that perspective, it wouldn't invalidate what I've said.

Sure, our perceptions serve as representations an impressions of external objects. Of course, our mental image of a tree is not identical to the observed tree. What I'm saying is that qualia -- subjective experiences -- are objects in-and-of-themselves.

Agreed. But so are illusions objects in-and-of-themselves. So are abstractions. Please keep in mind I'm not using the word "illusion" in the conventional sense. I know that it connotes something that isn't really real so I'm between a rock and hard place. This whole thing started when I was trying to help another poster clarify a "useful fiction" remark. Qualia feel real to us because they are the only form of reality we really know (like the Matrix is to its inhabitants who haven't taken the blue pill yet - or was it the red one?). The irony and paradox is that external reality, what we commonly refer to as objective reality, must all be inferred from that by us (our subjective reality). That is how Kant would interpret it I think. UE is a Kant expert so I'd love him to chime in.

 

[PixyMisa]

rofl

Epic fail.

Read the conversation and try again.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I'm going to ask you a simple rhetorical question:

Do you exist?

Sure. What difference does that make? Many processes are "objects-in-and-of-themselves" by the argument you have provided. Including things that are clearly not true. What purpose does that serve?