Has consciousness been fully explained?

[Jeff Corey]

To PixyMisa, Philosaur, Rocket Dodger, and others:

The reason I've been asking the questions I've been putting to you lately, and coming back to the notion of consciousness as phenomenon/event, and offering the examples of other bodily functions, and commenting on the abstract nature of IP is this....

If we get down to brass tacks and consider what's happening in physical reality -- without the distracting overlay of the abstract notion of "information processing" -- what we're left with is the firing of neurons.

And the firing of neurons results in the firing of neurons.

No argument there, I would imagine.

But if the firing of neurons is to result in some other type of event, some other type of phenomenon, then it must trigger some other mechanism to carry that out.

There has to be some other mechanism involved for the firing of neurons to trigger, say, blinking, or shivering, or contracting a muscle, or focusing light on a retina.

(The computer homolog is the display of pixels on a screen, or the generation of a printout, or the playing of a CD.)

Clearly, consciousing is an event, a phenomenon, that takes place in real time in the real world. It's something our bodies do. It's unique in that it's the only such thing that is done entirely by the brain, and it's fundamentally unlike these other examples which we readily understand because we know where to look for the mechanism when it comes to them. But nevertheless, it's something our bodies do.

So if we only consider the firing of the neurons, we're never going to get beyond the firing of the neurons.

In other words, without some other mechanism, there can be no other event besides the neural signaling itself.

But because we're faced with the undeniable phenomenon of conscious events, we're forced to conclude that some mechanism is involved which we haven't yet been able to determine.

And this is not surprising, considering how difficult it is to peer inside a working brain. That, and the fact that we don't know in advance what to look for.

The thing is, running the logic results in running the logic.

Firing of neurons results in firing of neurons.

So if you're going to stop there, then to bridge the gap between that -- which is involved in all the other processes mentioned which do not require the participation of consciousness -- you have to insert that step from the famous New Yorker cartoon: "And then a miracle happens".

In other words, you're leaving the ghost inside the machine.

There is no reason to make any sort of exception for consciousing, even though it's unique in many ways, even though we don't fully understand how it's done or even what it is.

We do know it's a function of the body, and as such, it requires a mechanism of some sort to pull it off. Executing logic is not sufficient, because it cannot be sufficient.

To say that consciousness happens without an executing mechanism is just as nonsensical as saying that blinking or shivering can happen without any such mechanism, even though these bodily functions are quite different from one another.

So.... Even if we can conclude that SRIP is involved in all of this -- just as other types of IP, or SRIP, are involved in all the other examples -- we have not explained consciousness until we figure out the specific physical process which does something more than to instantiate the logic. It must instantiate the actual real-time, real-world phenomenon.

And merely running the logic is incapable of doing that.

Which is why I'm confident in saying, in response to the OP, that no, we have not yet explained consciousness.

I agree with your conclusion, but don't follow your reasoning.
Mine is more simplistic.
What you all are calling consciousness, thinking, cognition and the like are all what Skinner called "private events". Other people can't see them. They are not reliably observable, consequently not empirical data.
But they are real behavior. We all agree we have then. I think. You think. Maybe my dog thinks.
fMRIs can show us what lobe is active during picturing an elephant. Another when we re subvocally recite a dirty limerick from Nantucket.
But that's not explaining consciousness.

 

[PixyMisa]

Butting in? Hey, nobody's butting in, here. We're all part of the discussion, no?

Anyway, let's think it through here.

If consciousness is a result of running the logic plus the mechanism that mediates between the logic and the real-world event

Why plus that mechanism?

But that fact does not change the other fact: That some sort of mechanism beyond firing-neurons must be part of the chain of events in order for the phenomenon of consciousness to be instantiated.

Well, no. Not at all.

 

[PixyMisa]

Similarly, there is no abstract "consciousness" looking for an interface to express itself.

Sure.

Like blinking, consciousing is a combination of neural activity plus whatever (as yet undetermined) mechanism enables the actual phenomenon/event.

What mechanism? What phenomenon/event? What are you talking about?

The best example I can think of is the case of Marvin, a fellow who had a stroke that disrupted the pathways which allowed him to be conscious of his emotional states.

He still had those states, but as odd as it seems, he had to logically infer, for example, that he was amused when his body reacted to something by laughing. He had no conscious sensation of being amused, just as we all have no conscious sensation of our visual blind spots.

Sure. No problem. That is entirely explained by neural activity, and entirely explained by the self-reference model. The consciousness loop has lost access to the emotional data due to the physical damage caused by the stroke.

Indeed, it's not just a non-problem, it's precisely the sort of evidence we're looking for to support our position.

 

[Piggy]

Why plus that mechanism?

As I explained, for the same reason that blinking, shivering, and other bodily functions involving the brain require neurology plus the mechanism to take it the next step.

 

[Piggy]

Well, no. Not at all.

You're going to have to unpack that, my friend.

What makes consciousness such a special function that it alone requires no executive mechanism to make it happen?

And if it is special, please explain how in the world that happens.

 

[Piggy]

What mechanism? What phenomenon/event? What are you talking about?

Are you again denying that you're conscious?

Might as well deny that you breathe, or that your heart beats.

There's nothing that can be done with claims like that. It's "pining for the fjords".

 

[PixyMisa]

I really don't see how the difference is significant, but let's say it is. Is it your contention then that if a Roomba modified some internal lines of code to modify its behavior when it encountered an object, instead of just following already existing if/then instructions, it would suddenly become aware of itself?

It wouldn't "suddenly become aware of itself". That self-modifying part of the code would be self-aware.

Just as we are not aware of much of what is going on inside us, the mere addition of a self-aware subroutine does not produce self-awareness outside that subroutine.

Self-awareness is the process itself, not a product.

 

[Piggy]

Sure. No problem. That is entirely explained by neural activity, and entirely explained by the self-reference model. The consciousness loop has lost access to the emotional data due to the physical damage caused by the stroke.

Indeed, it's not just a non-problem, it's precisely the sort of evidence we're looking for to support our position.

Please describe the actual specific mechanism of this "consciousness loop" and the specific brain structures involved and how precisely they generate consciousness.

 

[PixyMisa]

Will do. Might I make a suggestion as well? Listen to the Teaching Company lectures on philosophy of mind by Searle (which you can find on teh internets). I don't agree with him, but I do think he is one of the best at presenting the case against strong AI, and I do think it is a good exercise to get exposed to the best counterarguments to one's position.

John Searle? Chinese Room John Searle?

The man's an idiot.

There's been considerable discussion here regarding Searle and David Chalmers and Frank Jackson (of "Mary's Room" infamy) and why they are all wrong. Unfortunately, many of those are train-wreck threads, but you might still find some amusement if you do a search.

 

[PixyMisa]

For all concerned - I would be interested in your opinion.

Suppose that there was a sufficiently detailed computer model of a human brain, and say this brain is given realistic sense data, including modelling of the sense data associated with body control and feed back.


Perhaps it starts as a model of an embryo and models the brain development up to birth and then childhood even adulthood - obviously this would take vast computing power.

But suppose that could be done - do you think it possible that the virtual human being modelled would exhibit human like behaviour?

For my own part I cannot see any reason why it would not exhibit human like behaviour.

Well, you know my answer - I consider it impossible that it wouldn't.

 

[PixyMisa]

Please describe the actual specific mechanism of this "consciousness loop" and the specific brain structures involved and how precisely they generate consciousness.

It's a feedback loop made up of interconnected neurons. Signalling via electrochemistry, which is, after all, what neurons do.

There are multiple such loops in the brain, but there is one major one - unless you cut the corpus callosum, in which case there are two.

If you want detail, go read Godel, Escher, Bach and listen to the MIT Introduction to Psychology lecture series. That's 800+ pages of dense information and 30+ hours of lectures. I cannot fit all that into this edit box, and as I've said before, if you have any interest at all in this subject you owe it to yourself to read the book and listen to the lectures, because they are miracles of explicative clarity and intellectual stimulation.

Also, the lectures are a free download - audio and lecture notes are available here: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/brain-an...uction-to-psychology-fall-2004/lecture-notes/

 

[PixyMisa]

As I explained, for the same reason that blinking, shivering, and other bodily functions involving the brain require neurology plus the mechanism to take it the next step.

Yes, but that's no explanation at all.

What is it that you think consciousness does that requires this mechanism? And why? And what do you think this mechanism is?

When you blink, your eyelids move.
When you shiver, your muscles contract and relax rapidly.

When you're conscious, the only thing that's involved is your neurons.

 

[PixyMisa]

Are you again denying that you're conscious?

Not at all. I'm pointing out that consciousness is a function of neural activity in the brain. There is no additional mechanism implied or required.

 

[Piggy]

It's a feedback loop made up of interconnected neurons. Signalling via electrochemistry, which is, after all, what neurons do.

There are multiple such loops in the brain, but there is one major one - unless you cut the corpus callosum, in which case there are two.

If you want detail, go read Godel, Escher, Bach and listen to the MIT Introduction to Psychology lecture series. That's 800+ pages of dense information and 30+ hours of lectures. I cannot fit all that into this edit box, and as I've said before, if you have any interest at all in this subject you owe it to yourself to read the book and listen to the lectures, because they are miracles of explicative clarity and intellectual stimulation.

Also, the lectures are a free download - audio and lecture notes are available here: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/brain-an...uction-to-psychology-fall-2004/lecture-notes/

Please, PixyMisa, let's not go around like this again.

It's a very simple question which you should be able to answer in summary without sending me off to read tomes like GDE or listen to a lecture series.

You referred to a "consciousness loop" in the brain.

Where is this loop? What structures are involved? And how does it generate consciousness?

Please do not respond by giving me a telegraphic (and insufficient) answer, then directing me to read hundreds of pages or listen to hours of lecture.

Just tell me what it is you're referring to.

 

[Piggy]

Not at all. I'm pointing out that consciousness is a function of neural activity in the brain. There is no additional mechanism implied or required.

Again, assertions != explanations.

I've gone to the trouble of explaining why an executive mechanism is needed.

If consciousness is the one bodily function which does not require any executive mechanism to make it happen, then you're going to have to explain why this is so, and how it could possibly work.

Neural activity leads to neural activity.

For neural activity to lead to some other sort of event/phenomenon, then there needs to be a mechanism which allows it to happen.

What is the mechanism which bridges the gap between the physical process of neural firing and the phenomenon of conscious awareness?

 

[Piggy]

When you blink, your eyelids move.
When you shiver, your muscles contract and relax rapidly.

When you're conscious, the only thing that's involved is your neurons.

The fact that we cannot (yet) see inside the brain with sufficient clarity to determine the mechanism does not constitute an excuse to pretend that no mechanism is needed.

As I clearly stated earlier, we know what the executive mechanisms are for blinking and shivering; we do not yet know what the mechanism is for consciousing.

You seem to take that as a blank check to ignore the gap and simply declare that no mechanism is needed.

But this makes no sense.

The firing of neurons leads to the firing of neurons.

Consciousness is a behavior. It is a function of the body.

So, again... what is the mechanism that leads from the firing of neurons to the behavior of conscious awareness?

 

[Robin]

For all concerned - I would be interested in your opinion.

Suppose that there was a sufficiently detailed computer model of a human brain, and say this brain is given realistic sense data, including modelling of the sense data associated with body control and feed back.


Perhaps it starts as a model of an embryo and models the brain development up to birth and then childhood even adulthood - obviously this would take vast computing power.

But suppose that could be done - do you think it possible that the virtual human being modelled would exhibit human like behaviour?

For my own part I cannot see any reason why it would not exhibit human like behaviour.

Well, you know my answer - I consider it impossible that it wouldn't.

That is three saying it would, nobody yet saying it wouldn't.

How about the others here?

 

[PixyMisa]

Please, PixyMisa, let's not go around like this again.

It's a very simple question which you should be able to answer in summary without sending me off to read tomes like GDE or listen to a lecture series.

Sorry, Piggy, you have to. Your questions have been answered; you clearly need more background to understand the answers. I'm pointing you to the very best resources to provide that knowledge.

You referred to a "consciousness loop" in the brain.

Where is this loop?

In the brain.

What structures are involved?

Neurons. Lots of them.

And how does it generate consciousness?

Self-referential information processing.

Please do not respond by giving me a telegraphic (and insufficient) answer, then directing me to read hundreds of pages or listen to hours of lecture.

You want to understand a subtle behaviour of the most complex devices that exist. Good for you. But you're going to have to make a little effort.

Read the book, Piggy. Listen to the lectures. They are brilliant. We're talking about a book that discusses self-referential patterns in mathematics, music, and art, that won the Pulitzer Prize. It is a veritable garden of intellectual delights. Whether you agree with me or not, you owe it to yourself to read Godel, Escher, Bach.

MIT now has a course on GEB itself: http://ocw.mit.edu/high-school/courses/godel-escher-bach/video-lectures/

Unfortunately it's a stupid RealMedia streaming video that doesn't seem to work.

Just tell me what it is you're referring to.

Self. Reference.

As I have said several hundred times by now.

 

[PixyMisa]

To PixyMisa, Philosaur, Rocket Dodger, and others:

Clearly, consciousing is an event, a phenomenon, that takes place in real time in the real world. It's something our bodies do. It's unique in that it's the only such thing that is done entirely by the brain, and it's fundamentally unlike these other examples which we readily understand because we know where to look for the mechanism when it comes to them. But nevertheless, it's something our bodies do.

So if we only consider the firing of the neurons, we're never going to get beyond the firing of the neurons.

So consciousness is the firing of neurons - in specific patterns, but still just the firing of neurons.

The end.

You are looking for a mechanism that is not required, to explain behaviours that don't exist - that you have never even described.

There is no more to it. You're just trying to shove the ghost back into the machine; the problem is, there never was a ghost.

As I've said, Hofstadter devotes 800 pages to explaining from first principles how this is possible in Godel, Escher, Bach; and Wolfe explains how this maps to modern psychology in his lecture series. They both cover a lot of ground, but every inch of it is illuminating. I can't cover all that ground in this edit box, and I can't cover it as well as they do in any case.

Go to the source, Piggy. You will not regret it.

 

[westprog]

But again, you did not read what I said. I said "For example if the measurement is whether the voltage across silicone junctions is below or above certain threshholds " In this case the precise voltage does not matter.

Yes, and it doesn't matter what the instant velocity of every molecule in a hurricane is. It's an abstraction - like all physical measurements. They are never exact. Nearly all the things we measure are an abstraction of the forces acting between individual sub-atomic particles.

There are quantised events with (probably) exact values, which we can measure (though not to exact precision), but these are not what we use for computation. We decide to call one particular voltage range a 1, and another voltage range a 0 - in exactly the same way that we call a particular hurricane a force 10.

Yes I do and so do you. You are doing it right now.

I assure you I'm not. If there's any silicone on the premises I'm not aware of it.