Has consciousness been fully explained?

[PixyMisa]

Pixy Misa, history is full of circumstances where people like yourself believed they had the answers because they had lowered their standards to fit the current paradigm, in your case the Turing-Church Hypothesis.

You still haven't explained what it means to say that I have "lowered my standards", much less shown that I have done so.

And in any case, who, exactly?

You are correct that within the information age paradigm we find ourselves it is the best current model to date for consciousness, but what makes me strive for a more satisfactory model is my belief that consciousness is more beautiful than a computer program.

That's nice, but what evidence and theory do you base this belief upon, and what does it mean?

This does not mean I accept other suggestion, but certainly means I try to understand them and see whether they have any value in adjusting my thinking.

I do the same.

What you do on the other hand is simply dismiss them as they are not built on the platform of your information paradigm.

Not even remotely true.

The brain processes information. That is simply what it does. It's a fact. It's unavoidable.

Biology, chemistry, physics, psychology, anthropology and sociology are all valid approaches to understanding the depth and breadth what the brain does and how.

But everything comes back to this: The brain is a computer, and what it does is process information.

 

[westprog]

I am not sure of your meaning, please elaborate. The data is there..., discarded no, something else?

Information, in a physical sense, is carried back and forth in every interaction between physical objects. If the brain is a Turing machine. it clearly doesn't process all that information. In fact, it would be impossible for it to do so.

In the brain, enormous amounts of information are being transferred around. A tiny amount is being processed by the neurons. The question is - why is this tiny subset of information responsible for creating consciousness?

 

[PixyMisa]

Perhaps Pixy Misa you could answer these questions now.

Will do, I was concentrating on answering Piggy's questions for a bit.

Are you someone that believes theoretically that consciousness can be downloaded onto a computer?

It's not logically or physically impossible, but it would be extremely difficult to do in practice. Consciousness is not a state that you can copy, it's an ongoing process. It is, however, purely informational in nature and hence substrate-independent.

So you could, in theory, synchronize a suitably-designed computer with the processes going on within your brain. In the field of computing this is known as process migration, and it's a fairly commonplace technique these days. However, most computers are much simpler than the brain and most programs much simpler than the mind, and furthermore we can take advantage of having identical hardware on both sides (whether it's physical or virtual doesn't matter).

To do so with human consciousness is several orders of magnitude more difficult, but yes, it is possible.

Are you a supporter of the idea of "Technological Singularity" as defined by Ray Kurzweil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity)?

I'm not a huge fan of Kurzweil, but the concept and even the name didn't originate with him.

Basically, what the technological singularity boils down to is this:

Scientific and technological advancement is accelerating, and forms a sort of virtuous circle, where scientific advances accelerate technological advances and vice-versa.

At some point, the rate of change becomes so great that it is impossible to predict what the future will be like - not just predict with precision, but predict at all. Standing before the singularity, the situation on the far side is unknowable.

In those terms, sure, the technological singularity will happen, because it's already begun.

 

[Dancing David]

Information, in a physical sense, is carried back and forth in every interaction between physical objects. If the brain is a Turing machine. it clearly doesn't process all that information. In fact, it would be impossible for it to do so.

In the brain, enormous amounts of information are being transferred around. A tiny amount is being processed by the neurons. The question is - why is this tiny subset of information responsible for creating consciousness?

I think that is broadening the use of the word information and then starting the 'rocks rolling down hills, why aren't they conscious' of Franko, perhaps not your intent.

 

[westprog]

I think that is broadening the use of the word information and then starting the 'rocks rolling down hills, why aren't they conscious' of Franko, perhaps not your intent.

I'm using the physical definition of information (informally, I agree), which is quite different from the IT definition. The reason for mentioning it is to show clearly that there's a distinction between the two - and if we are discussing a physical effect, we have to use the physical definition.

 

[Plat]

Yes, it's a product of brain activity.

No, it is not possible that consciousness is not reducible to the brain, short of a fundamental revolution in science overturning essentially everything we believe we know about reality.

Very little about consciousness has been explained. We know some things about it. For instance, it's an activity of the brain. It's not unitary (as it once was thought to be). There are particular regions of the brain involved. It's resource-intensive.

Sorry I meant, is it possible that consciousness is not reducible to just the brain but the whole person, the whole package?

 

[PixyMisa]

I'm using the physical definition of information (informally, I agree), which is quite different from the IT definition. The reason for mentioning it is to show clearly that there's a distinction between the two - and if we are discussing a physical effect, we have to use the physical definition.

Nope. Dead wrong, in fact. The computer science definition is also a physical process.

 

[PixyMisa]

Sorry I meant, is it possible that consciousness is not reducible to just the brain but the whole person, the whole package?

Not really. All the related activity takes place in the brain. Feedback from the body (via the nervous and endocrine systems) affect consciousness, but aren't part of it.

 

[Aepervius]

piggy a BASIC turing machine do not model concurrency, and do not model random memory at all.

In other word their definition is limited. And do not even reflect modern computing system in their basic functionality.

An extension which I don't remember the name adding conccurency and memory is much more akin to what the brrain does, and what you described.


The bottom line is that it ain't exactly fair to apply a 1937 model for modern understanding.

 

[PixyMisa]

piggy a BASIC turing machine do not model concurrency, and do not model random memory at all.

Yes they do.

In other word their definition is limited.

No it's not.

And do not even reflect modern computing system in their basic functionality.

Yes they do.

Sorry, you're dead wrong in every respect. The Turing machine is a universal computer. This is what the Church-Turing thesis is all about:

Other formalisms (besides recursion, the λ-calculus, and the Turing machine) have been proposed for describing effective calculability/computability . Stephen Kleene (1952) adds to the list the functions "reckonable in the system S1" of Kurt Gödel 1936, and Emil Post's (1943, 1946) "canonical [also called normal] systems".[35] In the 1950s Hao Wang and Martin Davis greatly simplified the one-tape Turing-machine model (see Post–Turing machine). Marvin Minsky expanded the model to two or more tapes and greatly simplified the tapes into "up-down counters", which Melzak and Lambek further evolved into what is now known as the counter machine model. In the late 1960s and early 1970s researchers expanded the counter machine model into the register machine, a close cousin to the modern notion of the computer. Other models include combinatory logic and Markov algorithms. Gurevich adds the pointer machine model of Kolmogorov and Uspensky (1953, 1958): "...they just wanted to ... convince themselves that there is no way to extend the notion of computable function."[36]
All these contributions involve proofs that the models are computationally equivalent to the Turing machine; such models are said to be Turing complete. Because all these different attempts at formalizing the concept of "effective calculability/computability" have yielded equivalent results, it is now generally assumed that the Church–Turing thesis is correct.

The bottom line is that it ain't exactly fair to apply a 1937 model for modern understanding.

It is when it's been established that they are mathematically identical.

 

[Dancing David]

I'm using the physical definition of information (informally, I agree), which is quite different from the IT definition. The reason for mentioning it is to show clearly that there's a distinction between the two - and if we are discussing a physical effect, we have to use the physical definition.

Um the neurons (polarity shift in lipid bilayer osmotic potential) firing and releasing neurons translitters or through direct dendritic contact are the physical effects? The information is that the neuron fired and then the learned/associative patterns in other neurons firing in response.

 

[Dancing David]

Sorry I meant, is it possible that consciousness is not reducible to just the brain but the whole person, the whole package?

Certain aspects, such as emotional perception, involves the body senses,the kinesthetic components, and then there is the wonderful vestibular sense.

 

[bluskool]

It's no insufficient - or at leat, that is not an argument against its sufficiency - because by definition, there are no instances of self-referential information processing that do not produce instances of conscious awareness, because, by definition, they are the same thing.

I think that consciousness is produced by the human brain, which is self-refferential information processing (SRIP) machine. But I don't think that "SRIP" is a good definition for consciousness. That would be like defining Photoshop as a series of 1's and 0's. Is Photoshop a series of 1's and 0's? Yes, but it has certain functions which distinguish it from any other series of 1's and 0's.

I also don't think that "SRIP" is a good explanation for consciousness. Yes, consciousness is based on SRIP, but it is a very special type of SRIP, distinct from other types (for example, I don't think that a Roomba would be considered consciousness).

OTOH, it seems like a lot of people are looking for a simple definition and/or explanation of consciousness, but that won't happen because consciousness is more than one thing. Each element of consciousness is a function of the brain and is based on SRIP, but each element requires its own, relatively complicated explanation and definition. "SRIP" and "function of the brain" are both insufficient as a definition or explanation for consciousness or any of the individual elements that make up consciousness.

 

[PixyMisa]

I think that consciousness is produced by the human brain, which is self-refferential information processing (SRIP) machine. But I don't think that "SRIP" is a good definition for consciousness. That would be like defining Photoshop as a series of 1's and 0's. Is Photoshop a series of 1's and 0's? Yes, but it has certain functions which distinguish it from any other series of 1's and 0's.

I also don't think that "SRIP" is a good explanation for consciousness. Yes, consciousness is based on SRIP, but it is a very special type of SRIP, distinct from other types (for example, I don't think that a Roomba would be considered consciousness).

Okay; that means we're starting from the same position but you would include something more in the definition. That's perfectly reasonable.

What else would you include, and why? And what is different about the self-referential information processing which leads to consciousness, compared to that which doesn't?

OTOH, it seems like a lot of people are looking for a simple definition and/or explanation of consciousness, but that won't happen because consciousness is more than one thing. Each element of consciousness is a function of the brain and is based on SRIP, but each element requires its own, relatively complicated explanation and definition. "SRIP" and "function of the brain" are both insufficient as a definition or explanation for consciousness or any of the individual elements that make up consciousness.

What exactly is it that is needed in addition? And why?

 

[rocketdodger]

If the computer can simulate a composer writing a symphony, the computer can produce an actual symphony. There is no distinction.

If the computer can simulate a poet writing a sonnet, the computer can produce an actual sonnet. There is no distinction.

If the computer can simulate a physicist formulating and testing a hypothesis, the computer can carry out scientific research. There is no distinction.

I find this to be the most profound point made in this entire thread.

Yet, it hasn't been brought up in a post since.

I wonder why?

 

[westprog]

Um the neurons (polarity shift in lipid bilayer osmotic potential) firing and releasing neurons translitters or through direct dendritic contact are the physical effects? The information is that the neuron fired and then the learned/associative patterns in other neurons firing in response.

So why does just that information transfer produce consciousness, and not the other vast amount of information transfer going on in the brain (and any other physical system)?

 

[westprog]

I find this to be the most profound point made in this entire thread.

Yet, it hasn't been brought up in a post since.

I wonder why?

Because of all the other human behaviours for which the simulation is not the same as the activity itself. Eating lunch. Dancing. Giving birth. Getting angry.

Also because computers can't do these things. Until they can, we don't know if it's actually possible.

 

[Beth]

And what is different about the self-referential information processing which leads to consciousness, compared to that which doesn't?

I don't think this is established at this point. If we knew what was different, we could include it in the definition of consciousness. At this point, all we can do is point at SRIP's that have consciousness (animals) and SRIP's that don't (thermostats and computers) and say that they are different.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

I don't think this is established at this point. If we knew what was different, we could include it in the definition of consciousness. At this point, all we can do is point at SRIP's that have consciousness (animals) and SRIP's that don't (thermostats and computers) and say that they are different.

Even if thermostats and computers were conscious (in some rudimentary sense), you/we would probably consider them not to be conscious anyway.

 

[Beth]

Even if thermostats and computers were conscious (in some rudimentary sense), you/we would probably consider them not to be conscious anyway.

That is the general consensus at the moment. Do you consider them to be conscious? If so, why?