Has consciousness been fully explained?

[!Kaggen]

That's tautological. Without an environment, the brain is dead.

So you agree then?

Beyond that, what precisely is it about the environment that is a necessary component or factor in consciousness, and why?

Percepts, no percepts = dead brain

Still waiting for an answer to my previous questions, by the way.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6398714#post6398714

 

[!Kaggen]

What part of that do you have trouble with?

You do realize I asked you a question, so it seems you are the one having the trouble answering it.

 

[!Kaggen]

That's not entirely true; however, the important point is that there is absolutely no difference in this respect between a computer game and a human mind.


Yeah, we do.


Strawman.


But if we do - and we do - then we can. So your argument is without a point, really.


Yes, we noticed. You can't enforce that upon others, though.


As I said, you can't enforce your personal ignorance upon others. We know things.

Piggy, like I said, the appeal from Pixy to the Wisdom of Crowds..

 

[PixyMisa]

So you agree then?

It's tautological.

Percepts, no percepts = dead brain

Unpack that a little, please.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6398714#post6398714

Oops, sorry! Missed that somehow.

 

[PixyMisa]

The ones where human consciousness is narrowly defined so that it can be explained exclusively using information technology.

What standards are those? How have I lowered them? What does it even mean to lower them? In what way is my definition narrow? After all, the most common complaint, indeed your own complaint, is that it is overly broad.

Exactly, add a digital control with SRIP to your mechanical thermostat and it satisfies your lowly standards of data processing as defined in IT.

Then yes, it would be conscious by definition.

So, I ask again, what standards have I lowered? How does it follow that thermostats are our equals? What do you mean when you say that thermostats are our equals? Why do you think that this is valid? Why would it be a bad thing? Even if it were a bad thing, do you think this would make the definition incorrect? If so, why? If not, why did you raise it as an argument?

Why you might want to lower your standards?

I didn't ask that. I asked why we would need to lower our standards.

Probably something to do with superstition (the need to explain what we don't yet understand).

What is it you claim we do not understand, and why? And why do you ascribe that particular motive to me, or indeed, to anyone?

There is more to consciousness than the limits of the binary digital world.

What evidence do you have to support this rather curious claim? Please take into consideration the Church-Turing Thesis, which establishes that this is a mathematical impossibility.

By defining human consciousness based on what we know about information technology your assuming how humans will respond to information technology.

Evidence for any of that, and your reasons for believing that it is in any way relevant to the discussion, please?

Be precise.

 

[!Kaggen]

Unpack that a little, please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percept

 

[PixyMisa]

Piggy, like I said, the appeal from Pixy to the Wisdom of Crowds..

Sorry, no.

It's the argument from Established Fact. That's not generally considered a fallacy of any sort.

 

[PixyMisa]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percept

I don't care about what Wikipedia says. I want to know what you think you mean. As far as I can tell, your statement was quite devoid of meaning.

 

[Aepervius]

So? There's no limit to how deeply he can understand the process. It's just a matter of how hard he studies it. In any case, nothing happens in the game which isn't a fully understood physical process.

Only because we made it bottom up. Now put a physicist without showing him the code, the technic, the CPU language.

That is where we are at, not even counting the massively parallel problem.

You can say whatever you like about what you think consciousness is, but you don't know what it is. Just saying that it's a lot of complicated things going on doesn't add up to anything. If you don't know what it is, then you can't insist that it is or is not anything in particular.

We do KNOW what it is. It is a massively parallel emergent process from the brain based on neuron various type of communication. What we DON'T KNOW is in the detail how it works, or even how it emerge or how to reproduce it.

In other word we are that stumped physicist having only electronic/transistor knowledge looking at a beautiful game : he knows basically this is all transistor/turtle all the way down, but could not describe precisely in detail how it works. Or even reproduce it. And we model our brain/CPU with a few thousand of transistor/neuron, a few million at best. No way you can simulate crysis with that. No idea about consciousness but I betcha it would be far from it.

I hope you find 'em soon - for both our sakes. That's why I keep spare pairs of glasses all over the house.

I let myself afterward be led by noises. They were deep under a sofa. A bit scratched. Lessens learned ,:
1) my cat now can climb on that filedrawer despite the height
2) keep a spare in a drawer

 

[Robin]

You do realize I asked you a question, so it seems you are the one having the trouble answering it.

The answer is obviously yes as I had stated quite clearly

You can have knowledge of baking a cherry pie without language.

You can't have knowledge of physics without language.

What exactly is the problem with that?

 

[Robin]

Well, both, when you get right down to it.

Certainly it happens. There can be no doubt about that.

And since energy is undoubtedly involved, and there must be certain massive structures allowing it to happen, you could argue that it has substance as well.

Certain massive structures. A brain, you mean?

 

[westprog]

The answer is obviously yes as I had stated quite clearly

You can have knowledge of baking a cherry pie without language.

You can't have knowledge of physics without language.

What exactly is the problem with that?

If you can learn facts about the universe without language - by doing things- then that is physics. Surely doing experiments oneself is more fundamental than believing what someone else tells us?

 

[Plat]

Piggy, I tried PM'ing you but it appears your inbox is full, so I'll ask on here. If you don't mind me asking, what is your position/view, I take it your a materialist?

 

[Robin]

If you can learn facts about the universe without language - by doing things- then that is physics.

It might be what you call physics, but it is not what I understand as physics.

Surely doing experiments oneself is more fundamental than believing what someone else tells us?

Who said anything about believing what someone else tells us?

Physics is a particular sort of study - it involves precise measurement, mathematical reasoning, the development of a testable, falsifiable hypothesis involving a mathematical model and testing it.

Just noticing that something falls down when we throw it up is not physics.

And the science of physics is different from cookery.

 

[westprog]

We do KNOW what it is. It is a massively parallel emergent process from the brain based on neuron various type of communication. What we DON'T KNOW is in the detail how it works, or even how it emerge or how to reproduce it.

But we don't know if it is essentially massively parallel or if this is just a matter of efficiency. According to the algorithmic fundamentalists (and I'm sure they'll be commenting) the execution of an equivalent single thread algorithm would give exactly the same experience as the parallel processing of the brain. Indeed, they'll quite possibly tell you that we know this to be true with absolute certainty.

 

[Dancing David]

Most words refer to more than one thing. If we could only name unique items then language wouldn't be very useful.

Yes but that is why I call the problem of vague defintion.

When someone wants to say that there may an issue of how consciousness may possibly be contructed out of the myriad of brain functions then it becomes crucial.

 

[Dancing David]

So how do you suggest finding out about electrons without any experience of the effects of electrons? Any suggestions?

I wish people would at least think a bit before handing out the abuse.

How does that effect the actual measurement, sure we need some interpretation of an instrument or experiment, but does the 'sensation to perception to cognition to verbal discussion' really change where the mark is on the thermometer?

Or the outcome of Millikan's measurement of the charge of an electron?

 

[AlBell]

At least we got to 'moving pebbles in the sand is conscious' just like 'PixyMisa and our other computationalists are conscious' in record time.

ps. I'm starting to agree, although I haven't figured out where Robin stands on the issue.

 

[Dancing David]

We do KNOW what it is. It is a massively parallel emergent process from the brain based on neuron various type of communication.

We seem to have data that suggest that, and as knowledge extends, we may be able to say that with confidence. However the devil is in the details.

Now we can say with some level of certainty that it does not involve QM outside of standard biochemistry or likely anything beyond the existing brain structure and biochemistry.

 

[westprog]

How does that effect the actual measurement, sure we need some interpretation of an instrument or experiment, but does the 'sensation to perception to cognition to verbal discussion' really change where the mark is on the thermometer?

Or the outcome of Millikan's measurement of the charge of an electron?

You cannot interpret the mark on the thermometer without it impinging on your consciousness. Until that happens, there's no physics taking place.