Are You Conscious?

[Frank Newgent]

How does Steven Hawkings catch a ball?

James Brady and Muhammad Ali help Hawkings to triangulate its position before it falls and comes to rest in Max Cleland's lap.

 

[annnnoid]

Way to miss the point there DD. As I pointed out, I am aware of some of the QED issues relating to conscious observers, and that was not what I was discussing.

Why do you suppose it’s called the biggest unanswered question in science (like…bigger than “where did the universe come from to begin with” even)? Is it because your little conclusion actually answers it? I doubt it.

The point is, how are we something to begin with, and what is the something that we are? Sorry, but ‘sensation, perception, and verbal cognition’ just begs the question (though after eighteen thousand posts, I guess you might be forgiven for missing the forest for the trees).

Do you suppose the fact that nobody wants to confront ‘the meat of the matter’ may have something to do with the character of the issue in question (like….what is the meat of the matter?…and what actually is there to say about it?)? Huh….do you suppose? Like, could it be remotely possible that the most singularly unique phenomenon in the known universe might have an equivalently unique explanation. Naw….that would just be too sensible.

So why don’t you cough up your theories there DD. I mean, eighteen thousand posts must have taught you something about exactly what you are. What, you mean you cannot actually answer the biggest question in science? So does that mean you also do not know who you are? …or what, exactly, does it mean?

What are the implications of the fact that this question is not answered? What does it imply about the question? And what does it imply about the questioners?

What does it mean that we do not have anything remotely resembling a conclusive or definitive scientific explanation for who or what we, or you, are? Can anyone actually truthfully claim that they are authentically human, when we do not know….by incalculable orders of magnitude….what it even means to be authentically human? Curious questions….maybe they have something to do with the difficulties inherent in understanding ‘the meat of the matter’ (actually, the relationship is quite substantial and quite specific….but I’ll leave that for others to illustrate…..perhaps someone with over ten thousand posts may have the credentials to explicitly respond).

….answer away there DD. Eighteen thousand posts must be worth something….you would think.

 

[rocketdodger]

If you are on Earth, and I am on a planet a million light years away, then now for me is a million years in your past. And now for you is a million years in my past.

No.

I am not talking about the "perception" of now, I am talking about now.

As in, right now, some event is taking place a million light years away. A million years from now the information from that event will finally reach us. But there is still something happening now way over there.

The fact that the information doesn't reach us for a million years doesn't invalidate the fact that events are simultaneously taking place here and there.

 

[rocketdodger]

Very few bodies without brains can manage to catch anything. It's the brain interacting with the body, in real time, that allows the system to catch the ball.

Yes, this is what everyone has been telling you from day 1.

So why are you only now accepting it?

One of your favorite arguments against the computational model is that computation alone can't do anything.

Yet you just admitted (finally) that the brain alone can't do anything either.

So.... where do you go from here?

 

[westprog]

Yes, this is what everyone has been telling you from day 1.

So why are you only now accepting it?

One of your favorite arguments against the computational model is that computation alone can't do anything.

Yet you just admitted (finally) that the brain alone can't do anything either.

So.... where do you go from here?

I think the fact that computation doesn't allow for interaction with the world implies that we need a model which does allow for interaction with the world. I have no faith in the concept of the brain-in-a-vat.

 

[westprog]

No.

I am not talking about the "perception" of now, I am talking about now.

As in, right now, some event is taking place a million light years away. A million years from now the information from that event will finally reach us. But there is still something happening now way over there.

The fact that the information doesn't reach us for a million years doesn't invalidate the fact that events are simultaneously taking place here and there.

Yes, it does. There is no "simultaneous". Have another look at "Special and General Relativity For Dummies". What happens a million miles away might look simultaneous to someone halfway between, but that doesn't mean that it is.

 

[rocketdodger]

Yes, it does. There is no "simultaneous". Have another look at "Special and General Relativity For Dummies". What happens a million miles away might look simultaneous to someone halfway between, but that doesn't mean that it is.

Wait, let me get this straight.

Suppose there is an event happening exactly one light year away, and electromagnetic radiation from this event will reach Earth in exactly one year.

You are claiming that this event is not simultaneous with an event occuring right now on Earth? Even though from our own reference frame both events occur at the same time?

 

[rocketdodger]

I think the fact that computation doesn't allow for interaction with the world implies that we need a model which does allow for interaction with the world. I have no faith in the concept of the brain-in-a-vat.

Yeah, because the computational model doesn't allow for interaction with the world. Right.

 

[westprog]

Wait, let me get this straight.

Suppose there is an event happening exactly one light year away, and electromagnetic radiation from this event will reach Earth in exactly one year.

You are claiming that this event is not simultaneous with an event occuring right now on Earth? Even though from our own reference frame both events occur at the same time?

No, from our reference frame the event happens when we see it happening.

There's no "now" that applies across the universe. There's just what we see.

There isn't even an order of events which are seperated in distance and time.

A brief discussion of this stuff.

According to the special theory of relativity, it is impossible to say in an absolute sense whether two events occur at the same time if those events are separated in space.

 

[Belz...]

Whether or not you are conscious when asleep is an interesting point, but you are certainly less conscious, and your brain is less time aware. I don't think it points especially strongly in either direction, but if anything, it demonstrates the time dependence of the conscious mind.

Interesting. So I mention a period during which time "sync" might be unimportant, and you think it demonstrates time dependency ?

 

[Belz...]

If you are on Earth, and I am on a planet a million light years away, then now for me is a million years in your past. And now for you is a million years in my past.

No.

 

[westprog]

Interesting. So I mention a period during which time "sync" might be unimportant, and you think it demonstrates time dependency ?

If when we are less conscious, we are less time dependent, then yes.

 

[Dancing David]

Yes, it's possible that damaged humans exist.

I wonder if westprog's basic thrust is to point out the problem with Pixy's formal definition of consciousness? Why isn't the instantiation of a Turing machine using pebbles in the sand conscious?

Nope, Westprog equated consciousness with catching a ball, multiple times.

I prefer the paper tube and golf ball computer myself.

 

[westprog]

No.

I suggest you refer to the wiki article which I referenced, which explains it better than I could. It's quite tricky to figure out when the local "now" is, but the people who do this kind of thing for a living have worked out lots of examples.

Googling "relativity of simultaneity" gives a number of references, but it's important to be careful. Modern physics and the internet have combined to produce a large number of websites devoted to debunking Einstein on the basis of misunderstood vague descriptions by non-mathematicians.

The best example seems to be the relativistic train - it's Einstein's own, and it's simple, and it's counter-intuitive. I suggest a look at that, rather than any examples that I can think up.

 

[westprog]

Nope, Westprog equated consciousness with catching a ball, multiple times.

I prefer the paper tube and golf ball computer myself.

I was going to explain this in more detail, but points missed by this much aren't really recoverable.

 

[Dancing David]

Way to miss the point there DD. As I pointed out, I am aware of some of the QED issues relating to conscious observers, and that was not what I was discussing.

Meybe if you would state you point coherently rather than pretending you had made it, it would be clearer that you were making a point?

Why do you suppose it’s called the biggest unanswered question in science (like…bigger than “where did the universe come from to begin with” even)? Is it because your little conclusion actually answers it? I doubt it.

Maybe you know what you are meandering about, I don't.

The point is, how are we something to begin with, and what is the something that we are?

Do you mean tghe origins of the universe?
Could you try to be a little less vague and general?

Sorry, but ‘sensation, perception, and verbal cognition’ just begs the question (though after eighteen thousand posts, I guess you might be forgiven for missing the forest for the trees).

So you lack the ability to express your ideas clearly and coherently and just start arm waving already, weak.

Do you suppose the fact that nobody wants to confront ‘the meat of the matter’ may have something to do with the character of the issue in question (like….what is the meat of the matter?…and what actually is there to say about it?)

And the meat of teh matter, which you forgot to mention, is?

? Huh….do you suppose? Like, could it be remotely possible that the most singularly unique phenomenon in the known universe might have an equivalently unique explanation. Naw….that would just be too sensible.

Considering you haven't demonstrated the 'uniqueness' of 'consciousness', that is just magical association.

So why don’t you cough up your theories there DD. I mean, eighteen thousand posts must have taught you something about exactly what you are. What, you mean you cannot actually answer the biggest question in science? So does that mean you also do not know who you are? …or what, exactly, does it mean?

Why not state you ideas and questions clearly?
Do you even know what you think?

Or do you just resort to rhetorical spinning the minutes some actually questions your arguments?

What are the implications of the fact that this question is not answered? What does it imply about the question? And what does it imply about the questioners?

Try stating your alleged question.

What does it mean that we do not have anything remotely resembling a conclusive or definitive scientific explanation for who or what we, or you, are?

I take it you are ignorant of organic chemistry as well. Okay.

Can anyone actually truthfully claim that they are authentically human, when we do not know….by incalculable orders of magnitude….what it even means to be authentically human?

Wow, I hope you did not have to pay a lot for that.
Words have idiomatic meaning through consensus of referents. DUH

Curious questions….maybe they have something to do with the difficulties inherent in understanding ‘the meat of the matter’ (actually, the relationship is quite substantial and quite specific….but I’ll leave that for others to illustrate…..perhaps someone with over ten thousand posts may have the credentials to explicitly respond).

Still can't state it huh?

….answer away there DD. Eighteen thousand posts must be worth something….you would think.

Oh, I am taken aback by the overwhelming lack of your ability to engage is critical thought and discussion.

 

[Dancing David]

I was going to explain this in more detail, but points missed by this much aren't really recoverable.

Beleive it or not I have been following the thread everyday and reading it, I understand that you are making a comparison between 'time dependant' and 'catching a ball'.

I am pointing out that you are using behavioral defintion that indicate consciousness. Which is the point.

You are using a defintion of behaviors that are time dependant to define consciousness.

But way to go with the hand wave and dismissal. (Are you and annoid in cahoots? )

I actually understand your argument and respect your ability to make it, I just disagree.

 

[westprog]

Beleive it or not I have been following the thread everyday and reading it, I understand that you are making a comparison between 'time dependant' and 'catching a ball'.

I am pointing out that you are using behavioral defintion that indicate consciousness. Which is the point.

You are using a defintion of behaviors that are time dependant to define consciousness.

But way to go with the hand wave and dismissal. (Are you and annoid in cahoots? )

I actually understand your argument and respect your ability to make it, I just disagree.

If you understood the point, why did you claim "Westprog equated consciousness with catching a ball"? How can we proceed from that? The hand wave and dismissal was yours. If you want to address the point seriously, I'll respond seriously (subject to availability).

 

[Dancing David]

Nah. I am just doing the drive by thing, I know you intended more behing your statements.

And pointing out that consciousness does not imply cathcing a ball, I even understand your time dependence.

But rather than derail with the way the Internet actualy works and yet another derail of what it might mean, I will keep to the lurk and post.

I just feel you could (not that ours is) organise consciousness along other lines than time dependant ones.

 

[annnnoid]

Ok DD…………the meat of the matter….

There is only one significant data point sufficient to qualify a system as being conscious and it's currently the one that is out of our epistemic scope: subjective sensibility.

As long as subjectivity lacks a solid theoretical frame in the physical sciences the quest for artificial consciousness really amounts to nothing but a modern incarnation of alchemy.

At some point we're going to have to deal with the actual physics of what the brain is doing instead of arrogantly -- lazily -- chalking it up to "computation/information processing/SRIP/etc." because the prospect of unknown science makes our brains hurt.
The problem is that you're putting the cart way before the horse. We have not yet identified what physically constitutes our consciousness and computational descriptions are not a sufficient substitute. At this point, computation has just become a "god of the gaps" explanation. Computationalism isn't science, its a placative ideology serving to distract AI researchers from the fact that they really have no idea what consciousness is. They're Columbus’s who fervently want to believe that they've found the western route to the East Indies when, in actuality, they've really been completely sidetracked.

It's entirely unjustified to assume that merely emulating the computational functions of our neurons is sufficient to produce consciousness -- especially when we have not yet discovered what consciousness is or how it is produced in the first place.

It’s a flat fact that we do not know what consciousness is or understand how the chemistry/physics of the brain produces subjective experience.

The question science can't answer isn't about how brains store information, it is about why consciousness should be needed at all as part of the process. Why couldn't brains store information without generating any "consciousness"?



So have I demonstrated the ‘uniqueness of consciousness’? Is it still just a ‘magical association’?

Answer whenever…..

As for me, I don’t have the background to explore the chemistry/physics of how subjective experience occurs (except in general terms). I do, though, explore it in other ways. I explore what might be described as the character of it. Other aspects of what makes it unique as a physical phenomenon.

Subjectivity is the equivalent of a rock (or tree, or ant, or bee…or galaxy), discovering its rockiness, developing a vocabulary of rockiness, and then rockily describing itself to itself, or other rocks. A human being is nothing more than complex matter (to put it very simplistically)….that can talk about itself. Do you know of any other varieties of talking matter…that can talk about how ‘they’ feel about talking about talking? Unique…in a unique kind of way. We are, essentially, a piece of the universe that can talk about its experience of being a piece of the universe, in a language that is itself a piece of the universe (the 'idea' that 'I' am 'me' is also nothing more than a function of that same universe).

One of the characteristics of human subjective reality is its ability to control its own ‘thingness’. IOW, its ability to define the dimensions of its own reality. Quantify, in some ineffably qualitative way, itself.

…so have you met any rocks recently that can decide their own ‘rockiness’? Or dogs, that can decide their own ‘doginess’?

…just slightly unique, in unique kinds of ways.

We are the only (known) phenomenon in the universe with the ability to control the degree to which it will be the phenomenon that it is (while the mass of men may be merely, as Pedro Almodovar caustically observed, animals with coats…..we do aspire to be Shakespeare…..and we do sometimes achieve it). Consciousness, therefore, has functions of degree, as well as kind (it would be called mind over matter if it weren’t such an incendiary statement). Maybe it’s no wonder that conventional science doesn’t want to touch this one with a ten foot pole. It implies a whole range of issues…from Rand to Rumi.

So I ask: what are the implications...
-that the question (of subjective sensibility) is so impenetrable
-of the relationship between the issue and our ability to understand it (because there quite obviously is one; we ask what subjective sensibility is by being what we are asking about)
-of the unique characteristics of the issue involved
-that human reality / consciousness / subjective sensibility appears to include functions of degree, as well as kind (because, though it may be nothing more than a circumstantial conclusion, anyone with a brain would have to be deaf dumb blind and stupid to come to any other conclusion….the mass of men really are nothing more than animals with coats, while some dudes are ‘somehow’ so much more….what, and how, are not merely ‘psychological’ or metaphysical questions….they can be articulated within whatever vocabulary of consciousness that has as yet to be discovered) (wild speculation…yeah, of course)