Has consciousness been fully explained?

[rocketdodger]

The computation is done by the person writing the numbers. The paper doesn't do any more calculating than an abacus falling off a cliff.

I would still like you to explain how a cell determines that it needs to increase the production of a certain protein.

When you can explain that, then maybe you will understand that not every calculation in the universe requires an intelligent mind.

 

[Meed]

Is it possible to see color without having the experience of seeing color?

Under certain ways of defining "seeing", arguably yes. Under others, no.

 

[westprog]

There I corrected your statement for you.

You inability to understand this issue does not imply a similar lack of understanding in everyone else.

Actually, until it is explained, then I will continue to insist that it is not understood. It hasn't even been clearly defined.

 

[westprog]

I would still like you to explain how a cell determines that it needs to increase the production of a certain protein.

When you can explain that, then maybe you will understand that not every calculation in the universe requires an intelligent mind.

A cell decides to increase the production of a certain protein in the same way that the planet Saturn decides on the path to follow around the Sun.

Again - either everything calculates, or it's something done just by humans. And expect some convoluted and unconvincing attempts at a definition to get around that.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

A cell decides to increase the production of a certain protein in the same way that the planet Saturn decides on the path to follow around the Sun.

Again - either everything calculates, or it's something done just by humans. And expect some convoluted and unconvincing attempts at a definition to get around that.

What? That both processes occur 'naturally' is trivial. To state that they both occur by the same process (in the same way) is ridiculous.

 

[westprog]

What? That both processes occur 'naturally' is trivial. To state that they both occur by the same process (in the same way) is ridiculous.

I'm not claiming that they both occur by the same process in the same way. It's RD who's claiming that a computer and a cell are following the same process. I'm saying that if an electronic device and a cell are following the same process, then so is everything else.

In order to refute this, then a different definition of computation needs to be found.

 

[AlBell]

What? That both processes occur 'naturally' is trivial. To state that they both occur by the same process (in the same way) is ridiculous.

Everyone wants to continue to ignore the life vs not-life divide. Solve that first, then we can discuss what consciousness might be.

Or you can believe your simulation of a lifeform courtesy of a computer and some code actually is alive.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Everyone wants to continue to ignore the life vs not-life divide. Solve that first, then we can discuss what consciousness might be.

Or you can believe your simulation of a lifeform courtesy of a computer and some code actually is alive.

It is alive in the simulation. Who is ignoring the life/non-life divide? Suggesting that there is a set divide between life and non-life is a huge part of the problem. There is no set demarcation between life and non-life since it is all complex biochemistry. We have general definitions of life -- and cells within the simulation meet every criterion within the simulation.

No one suggests that they are alive outside the simulation.

And this has nothing to do with my response to Westprog. The differences between the way protein regulation occurs and a planet moves about the sun is actually critical to the discussion. It is in the constraints on a system that information is defined. Light as we perceive it is meaningless without the receptors we use; and those receptors define the important aspects of what we call light.

ETA:

Unless you can tell me with a straight face that you and you alone have figured out the nature of Ultimate Reality and can now share this with the rest of us. Everything that we describe, investigate, etc. is done so on the basis of relationships among 'whatever is really out there'. This includes life. The set of relationships we describe for it we call biochemistry. We act as though it all depends on particles that have an indepdendent existence. None of us know that such a thing is true. We could be describing thoughts in the mind of God, or some other 'thing'; but all of it, all of it is based on relationships amongst some 'stuff'. What possible difference could it make if the 'stuff' were an action in a computer producing a simulation for the folks experiencing it?

 

[AlBell]

Unless you can tell me with a straight face that you and you alone have figured out the nature of Ultimate Reality and can now share this with the rest of us.

Nope. The only people taking that stance I'd categorize as hard-atheists/ontological-materialists.

I'd just say the ideas, or shall we say ideals, of Berkeley and Bergson have yet to be refuted.

What possible difference could it make if the 'stuff' were an action in a computer producing a simulation for the folks experiencing it?

The difference between reality and science fiction, perhaps?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

The difference between reality and science fiction, perhaps?

No. The difference is between knowing the nature of reality and not knowing the nature of reality.

You might be composed of actions in a large simulation; there is simply no way for you to be sure if you are or if you are not. None of us know the nature of ultimate reality, so we, like the folks in the simulation, simply apply our criteria for life and blithely report that the cell is alive.

Whether there is another context in which someone outside our system could laugh and say -- silly little simulations -- is beside the point. Within our universe a cell is alive if it meets the criteria for life and within a simulation the same is true. We are stuck with analyzing relationships; that is the nature of our knowledge potential.

 

[AlBell]

Now all we need is your response to my comments that you didn't quote.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Now all we need is your response to my comments that you didn't quote.

Meaning that you want me to reply to what seems to be a misperception of "hard core materialists"? There are plenty of people who have misperceptions about the nature of reality. Most of the people who identify as materialist and discuss the matter here define materialism as "we can't know the nature of reality so all we can do is describe the interactions."

I'm sorry, but the real distinction is between monists and dualists. It all amounts to the same 'thing' if you are monist, whether or not you or anyone else wants to throw their hat into the ring as a 'materialist', 'idealist' or 'neutral'. If the nature of reality is monism, then we can't get there from here. Bottom line.


ETA:

You do realize that someone who thinks that matter is 'it' -- all there is -- would be the one making the argument that the simulation can't be real? It can't be real because it isn't made of matter, so water 'there' can't get anyone wet.

But someone who views the nature of reality as ultimately not knowable, that sees that all we do is describe relationships sees the simulation in precisely the same way. The appearance of the simulation to anyone within the simulation is exactly the same as we see reality. Because all anyone can do is describe relationships amongst some "stuff" or "energy" or "whatever".

There is an implicit dualism in the critique of the simulation.

 

[rocketdodger]

A cell decides to increase the production of a certain protein in the same way that the planet Saturn decides on the path to follow around the Sun.

Again - either everything calculates, or it's something done just by humans. And expect some convoluted and unconvincing attempts at a definition to get around that.

Your repeated argument against computation is that "you can't find it in any physics textbooks."

Can you find molecular biology in any physics or astronomy textbooks?

Can you find the law of gravity in any molecular biology textbook?

 

[AlBell]

Meaning that you want me to reply to what seems to be a misperception of "hard core materialists"?

That's your terminology, not mine: ontological materialist was mine, coupled with hardcore-atheist (which I take as the position god does not, cannot exist).

There are plenty of people who have misperceptions about the nature of reality.

I'd say 'all of us'.

Most of the people who identify as materialist and discuss the matter here define materialism as "we can't know the nature of reality so all we can do is describe the interactions."

I'd call that pragmatic science and it does ignore ontology. Some also believe that relegates ontology as meaningless; perhaps it is. I don't know.

I'm sorry, but the real distinction is between monists and dualists. It all amounts to the same 'thing' if you are monist, whether or not you or anyone else wants to throw their hat into the ring as a 'materialist', 'idealist' or 'neutral'. If the nature of reality is monism, then we can't get there from here. Bottom line.

We can agree pragmatic science has as yet been unable to define ontology.

You do realize that someone who thinks that matter is 'it' -- all there is -- would be the one making the argument that the simulation can't be real? It can't be real because it isn't made of matter, so water 'there' can't get anyone wet.

I don't buy that argument; for an ontological materialist, life on up to and including consciousness is a 'simulation' in reality. There's nothing 'there' there.

But someone who views the nature of reality as ultimately not knowable, that sees that all we do is describe relationships sees the simulation in precisely the same way.

That seems to be the case.

The appearance of the simulation to anyone within the simulation is exactly the same as we see reality. Because all anyone can do is describe relationships amongst some "stuff" or "energy" or "whatever".

Hoping without proof that relationships between stuff and energy are well-understood enough (or at least eventually will be so understood) they can be simulated with computer code rather than with stuff and energy.

There is an implicit dualism in the critique of the simulation.

Or a different belief in the (possible) value of ontology. What attributes and relationships are needed to completely define stuff and energy.

Some believe we will eventually have that answer. Unknown, but what is known at the moment we sure don't.

Just my musings; ymmv.

 

[rocketdodger]

I'm not claiming that they both occur by the same process in the same way. It's RD who's claiming that a computer and a cell are following the same process. I'm saying that if an electronic device and a cell are following the same process, then so is everything else.

In order to refute this, then a different definition of computation needs to be found.

Oh, I see the game.

So your position is that a cell and Saturn follow the same processes, but in different "ways."

Ok -- then computation is just a "way" of following a process, a "way" that cells and computers have in common that Saturn does not.

That was easy.

 

[rocketdodger]

Everyone wants to continue to ignore the life vs not-life divide. Solve that first, then we can discuss what consciousness might be.

Or you can believe your simulation of a lifeform courtesy of a computer and some code actually is alive.

Actually, the only people "ignoring" the divide are the anti-computationalists.

Why do they ( you ) ignore it?

You ask questions like "is the creature in the simulation alive?" but you categorically refuse to answer the counter-question "why is the creature in physical reality alive?"

That is called "ignoring."

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

That's your terminology, not mine: ontological materialist was mine, coupled with hardcore-atheist (which I take as the position god does not, cannot exist).


I'd say 'all of us'.


I'd call that pragmatic science and it does ignore ontology. Some also believe that relegates ontology as meaningless; perhaps it is. I don't know.


We can agree pragmatic science has as yet been unable to define ontology.



I don't buy that argument; for an ontological materialist, life on up to and including consciousness is a 'simulation' in reality. There's nothing 'there' there.


That seems to be the case.


Hoping without proof that relationships between stuff and energy are well-understood enough (or at least eventually will be so understood) they can be simulated with computer code rather than with stuff and energy.


Or a different belief in the (possible) value of ontology. What attributes and relationships are needed to completely define stuff and energy.

Some believe we will eventually have that answer. Unknown, but what is known at the moment we sure don't.

Just my musings; ymmv.

Um, by definition, and by the way that definition and understanding work, if there is one substance we cannot understand that substance. We define words in relation to other words, we define things in relation to other things.

Ultimate reality, if there is one substance, cannot be known. The only way to know what ultimate reality *is* is if dualism is correct -- then the two substances can be realted one to the other. If there is one substance, then we fool ourselves only in thinking that we can understand it.

 

[AlBell]

You ask questions like "is the creature in the simulation alive?"

No, I state categorically simulated creatures are not alive.

but you categorically refuse to answer the counter-question "why is the creature in physical reality alive?"

Neither I nor anyone else can answer that question.

That is called "ignoring."

Don't think so.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I'm not claiming that they both occur by the same process in the same way. It's RD who's claiming that a computer and a cell are following the same process. I'm saying that if an electronic device and a cell are following the same process, then so is everything else.

In order to refute this, then a different definition of computation needs to be found.

That isn't what he is saying at all. I think you misunderstand his argument.

He is saying that a cell and a computer have certain processes in common and that one of those characteristics/processes is that both rely on local increases in order (amongst many other things). Once again, it is the constraints on a system that define it as a system and that define what meaning it has or is capable of.

 

[AlBell]

Um, by definition, and by the way that definition and understanding work, if there is one substance we cannot understand that substance. We define words in relation to other words, we define things in relation to other things.

Ultimate reality, if there is one substance, cannot be known. The only way to know what ultimate reality *is* is if dualism is correct -- then the two substances can be related one to the other.

Hard to see how that doesn't involve magic, and it doesn't work for me at least.

If there is one substance, then we fool ourselves only in thinking that we can understand it.

Some people appear to have so fooled themselves, and then find it odd 'the world' often doesn't agree.