Has consciousness been fully explained?

[Meed]

With a very broad definition of information, you could consider a lot of physical interactions to be information processing, though not all (given entropy).

Okay. So you're implying information is not well-defined since we could decide to define it in different ways, some more broad than others. Does this mean you agree with my earlier statement: "Information is not a well-defined term" (paraphrasing)?

What is your definition of information?

With regards to the brain, information can be clearly defined, as I have already gone over.

Then define it. Saying "we can easily define it in terms of nerve impulses and bits of hormone" (paraphrasing) is not defining it.

You've claimed it can be "easily" and "clearly" defined, yet you've been unable or unwilling to provide a definition for some reason.

As to how the brain is doing information processing, I answered that as well starting with a thought experiment.

That was not one of my questions. I asked "what do you think the definition of information is?", "are all physical interactions information processing" and "on what basis do you conclude that everything that goes on in the brain is information processing [as opposed to things that go on elsewhere]?" (paraphrasing) You've answered question #2.

I suspect your actual reason for not giving a substantive response to my post is that you don't have a good one though.

Cute, but appealing to my ego won't get you off the hook. I'll be happy to answer your questions after you answer mine. Until then, suspect away.

Alternatively, you could search the thread and see where I've discussed similar ideas with Ichneumonwasp.

 

[rocketdodger]

But that's not the critical issue.

No -- it is.

If you can replace the "internals" of a neuron with a computer controlled simulation, such that the physical neuron behaves identically as far as other neighbor neurons are concerned, and still have a functioning conscious brain, then why can't you just replace the whole thing with a simulation?

You replace one neuron with a simulation. Brain is still normal, consciousness exists.

You replace X neurons with a simulation. Same.

You replace X + 1 neurons with a simulation. According to you, all of a sudden there is no consciousness.

Huh? Why?

 

[rocketdodger]

Go ahead an detail how they differ in a way that doesn't depend on our subjectively to notice the difference.

This is exactly what westprog said 2 years ago, and this is exactly why I shifted focus to cells vs. rocks rather than computers vs. rocks.

Why?

Because cellular organisms exist with or without humans. Bacteria don't give a hoot whether humans even recognize them or not. And bacteria can tell a rock from other bacteria. They do it all the time. Thats how they reproduce, thats how they communicate.

Thus, there is an objective difference between bacteria and rocks. Otherwise, bacteria wouldn't know how to interact with another bacterium differently than they interact with a rock.

Of course, you could claim that this is still a "subjective" difference, but then you have admitted that bacteria experience subjectivity!!!

 

[!Kaggen]

This is exactly what westprog said 2 years ago, and this is exactly why I shifted focus to cells vs. rocks rather than computers vs. rocks.

Why?

Because cellular organisms exist with or without humans. Bacteria don't give a hoot whether humans even recognize them or not. And bacteria can tell a rock from other bacteria. They do it all the time. Thats how they reproduce, thats how they communicate.

Thus, there is an objective difference between bacteria and rocks. Otherwise, bacteria wouldn't know how to interact with another bacterium differently than they interact with a rock.

Of course, you could claim that this is still a "subjective" difference, but then you have admitted that bacteria experience subjectivity!!!

Bacteria don't need other bacteria to re-produce.

Of the 100trillion bacteria in out digestive tract which can exist without humans?

 

[rocketdodger]

Bacteria don't need other bacteria to re-produce.

Of the 100trillion bacteria in out digestive tract which can exist without humans?

Some bacteria exchange genetic material with other bacteria.

Many bacteria exist in nature and have nothing to do with humans.

What is your point?

Are you seriously trying to argue that even bacteria are somehow a figment of human subjectivity?

 

[Drachasor]

Then define it. Saying "we can easily define it in terms of nerve impulses and bits of hormone" (paraphrasing) is not defining it.

You've claimed it can be "easily" and "clearly" defined, yet you've been unable or unwilling to provide a definition for some reason.

Are you just grossly ignorant of how the brain works or something? Nerve impulses vary in many objective manners. One of the things that makes them vary in sensory nerves like touch is the magnitude of the sensation. There's an objective difference between the impulses a light touch causes and a hard touch. There's a lot more than just that of course.

This is clearly nerve impulses transmitting information. The same thing happens within the brain, impulses have different codes that cause different responses in the receiving neural cell(s). In fact, researchers regularly experiment with creating signals using electrodes and even now with light (by making neural cells light sensitive, which makes the light cause neural impulses).

Maybe what we have to do here is sit back and talk about how the brain works. You seem to know about as much about it as someone fuzzy on multiplication tables knows about math. If you don't understand much about the brain, then a discussion about what consciousness is will not be fruitful.

 

[!Kaggen]

Some bacteria exchange genetic material with other bacteria.

Many bacteria exist in nature and have nothing to do with humans.
What is your point?

You don't know enough about bacteria to use them in your arguments.

Are you seriously trying to argue that even bacteria are somehow a figment of human subjectivity?

You have just won the winning strawman argument of this thread

 

[Drachasor]

You don't know enough about bacteria to use them in your arguments.

His argument worked just fine. Bacteria, as a whole, don't need humans to survive. If you want to get technical, then the vast majority of bacteria don't need humans.

Also, in same cases bacteria DO need other bacteria to reproduce. Colonies of bacteria resistant to antibiotics, for instance, aren't full of bacteria that are resistant, rather it is a small subset of the bacteria that impart resistance to the group. Without that subset, the rest would die.

Frankly though, I don't see how these details are relevant to the issue at hand.

 

[rocketdodger]

You don't know enough about bacteria to use them in your arguments.

Huh?

What did I say that was incorrect about bacteria?

I said they recognize other bacteria, that is how they reproduce and communicate.

You point out that bacteria reproduce asexually. Correct, but many strains also exchange genetic information with each other. Are you disputing that?

You point out that many bacteria live in the human gut. Correct, but many more bacteria live outside of humans. Bacteria, in fact, live in places that neither humans nor human materials have ever been. Are you disputing that?

How do I not know enough about bacteria to use them in my arguments? I know plenty about bacteria, given that I was a molecular biology major for 4 years and have worked in biology labs dealing with microorganisms including bacteria for over 5 years of my life. Have you ever extracted and sequenced and aligned bacterial DNA? Have you created your own PCR primers from those sequences? Have you ever isolated and cultured bacterial strains? Have you observed bacterial evolution with your own eyes? Have you even looked at bacteria under a microscope? I have done all of that -- and I don't know enough about bacteria?

Again, what is your point? Do you agree that bacteria are objectively different from rocks, or not?

 

[!Kaggen]

Lets try to get PM to clarify his argument this way.

1. A Turing machine by definition is a machine that can compute anything computable-Church-Turing Thesis
2. All physical processes are computable.
3. Consciousness is the result of computing a physical process.
4. Therefore a Turing machine computing a physical process which results in consciousness is conscious.
5. SRIP is a computing process which results in consciousness.
6. A Turing machine doing SRIP is conscious.
7. Any other possibility is magic.


Ok Pixy, its over to you.... yes/no time...

Okay dokay lets try this again.


1. Consciousness is the result of neurons doing things.
2. A Turing machine can do anything a neuron can do.
3. A Turing machine that does anything a neuron can do is conscious.

no better still

1. Consciousness is the result of things doing things that neurons can do.
2. A Turing machine can do anything a thing can do.
3. A Turing machine that does anything a thing can do when it does what a neuron can do is conscious.

 

[!Kaggen]

His argument worked just fine. Bacteria, as a whole, don't need humans to survive. If you want to get technical, then the vast majority of bacteria don't need humans.

Also, in same cases bacteria DO need other bacteria to reproduce. Colonies of bacteria resistant to antibiotics, for instance, aren't full of bacteria that are resistant, rather it is a small subset of the bacteria that impart resistance to the group. Without that subset, the rest would die.

Frankly though, I don't see how these details are relevant to the issue at hand.

How many species of bacteria are there?
So now they are one all one big happy bacteria family for the sake of a poor argument.
I suppose you could argue that mammals don't need plants for food since they are not all vegetarian.

Huh?

What did I say that was incorrect about bacteria?

I said they recognize other bacteria, that is how they reproduce and communicate.

You point out that bacteria reproduce asexually. Correct, but many strains also exchange genetic information with each other. Are you disputing that?

You point out that many bacteria live in the human gut. Correct, but many more bacteria live outside of humans. Bacteria, in fact, live in places that neither humans nor human materials have ever been. Are you disputing that?

How do I not know enough about bacteria to use them in my arguments? I know plenty about bacteria, given that I was a molecular biology major for 4 years and have worked in biology labs dealing with microorganisms including bacteria for over 5 years of my life. Have you ever extracted and sequenced and aligned bacterial DNA? Have you created your own PCR primers from those sequences? Have you ever isolated and cultured bacterial strains? Have you observed bacterial evolution with your own eyes? Have you even looked at bacteria under a microscope? I have done all of that -- and I don't know enough about bacteria?

Could have fooled me.

Again, what is your point? Do you agree that bacteria are objectively different from rocks, or not?

You do know what a strawman argument is?

 

[rocketdodger]

You do know what a strawman argument is?

Yes, that is why I am now asking instead of telling.

Do you think that bacteria are objectively different from rocks? Yes or no?

I know you are smart enough to realize that either answer is going to spell trouble for your position, but that isn't my fault -- you took the position, not me.

 

[rocketdodger]

How many species of bacteria are there?
So now they are one all one big happy bacteria family for the sake of a poor argument.
I suppose you could argue that mammals don't need plants for food since they are not all vegetarian.

Are you suggesting that all bacteria rely upon other organisms to survive? Yes or no?

 

[Drachasor]

How many species of bacteria are there?
So now they are one all one big happy bacteria family for the sake of a poor argument.
I suppose you could argue that mammals don't need plants for food since they are not all vegetarian.

You're not seriously arguing that humans are anywhere near as vital to the ecosystem as plants are, are you? If all humans disappeared from the planet tomorrow, life would go on just fine for most of the Earth...heck, it would improve for significant parts.

 

[AlBell]

It's an objective fact that computers work with electricity of a certain voltage and amperage running through them, and that they have logic gates opening and closing at submicrosecond speed. Rocks don't.

Objective? In your subjective opinion (and in mine too) yup.

And when no subjective opinions are available both make fine doorstops; see the problem?

 

[Drachasor]

Objective? In your subjective opinion (and in mine too) yup.

And when no subjective opinions are available both make fine doorstops; see the problem?

Alright, then name some things you consider to be objectively true.

 

[westprog]

No. I don't have to show that a computer is the same a cell. You have to show that consciousness can only ever arise from cells. That there is something special inside the cell that creates consciousness.

In terms of processing neural signals (duplicating input and output), a computer is perfectly capable of mimicing that. Unless there is something magical about the cell in particular, which you must demonstrate, then a computer can certainly capture the important aspects of the brain.

I think that you're getting in a muddle about a computer - i.e. an electronic device which can fulfill many functions - and computation, which is a particular type of process. The assertion that has been made, many times, is that computation, as a process, is entirely able to perform the function of the brain. Or in some lesser versions, will be able to produce consciousness.

What a computer can and can't potentially do is quite a different matter. Computers are able to perform the type of real time control and monitoring functions which are performed by the brain. This is not a computational process in the Turing machine sense. Why the Strong AI lobby persist in their attachment to a model which clearly doesn't cover what the brain actually does is a mystery to me. If they were to insist that a computer could perform brain function, they'd have a far stronger position.

A computer which was used to replace a brain, or to imitate it, would be a far stronger contender for conscious behaviour than a machine which merely attempted to simulate a brain. Computers are regularly used to replace human control. They cannot do so using the Turing Machine model, however.

 

[Drachasor]

A computer which was used to replace a brain, or to imitate it, would be a far stronger contender for conscious behaviour than a machine which merely attempted to simulate a brain. Computers are regularly used to replace human control. They cannot do so using the Turing Machine model, however.

You make a distinction where there really isn't much of one. A machine that simulates part of the brain can replace that part if you just add connections to the brain. A machine that simulates a full brain can replace a brain if you just add connections.

The oddest thing about your statement, is your peculiar attachment to the human body. What's the significance of attaching a computer to a warm body?

Again, if you had a computer that simulated the entire solar system, down to the individual people and their behaviors, on what basis could you claim those people were not conscious? As far as we know, we could be such simulations on a bit of a larger scale.

As for Turing machines, I see no reason to limit ourselves to them. I certainly was not doing so. Real computers process information, but don't do it the same way Turing machines do. Real computers are capable of modeling physical phenomena, and a powerful enough real computer could potentially model the solar system and all inhabitants.

 

[westprog]

No -- it is.

If you can replace the "internals" of a neuron with a computer controlled simulation, such that the physical neuron behaves identically as far as other neighbor neurons are concerned, and still have a functioning conscious brain, then why can't you just replace the whole thing with a simulation?

You replace one neuron with a simulation. Brain is still normal, consciousness exists.

You replace X neurons with a simulation. Same.

You replace X + 1 neurons with a simulation. According to you, all of a sudden there is no consciousness.

Huh? Why?

A simulation which can replace even a single neuron cannot do so with just Turing machine functionality. I've explained this over and over. The objections to this position have been absurd. A Turing machine doesn't interact with its environment. It's a closed system, which performs computations. It's possible to simulate a neuron on a Turing machine, but such a simulation, purely computational in nature, could not possibly be used to replace a real neuron.

And yes, I've registered the arguments about time really being just a sequence of events, and the theory of relativity. I know that they aren't relevant, because I've written many monitoring and control systems, and if they aren't able to respond to external events, and they aren't able to respond within a certain time - the way that the brain does, or the ECU on your car, or the control computer for a water works, or a nuclear power station - then they don't work. A Turing machine simulation of a neuron wouldn't work.

It's necessary to be specific about this because terms are being used in such a carefree way that "simulation" could mean almost anything. I'm assuming that it means a computation, carried out on a Turing type device, since it's been consistently claimed that such a computation is capable of producing consciousness - indeed, that the Church-Turing thesis proves this.

Incidentally, it's been claimed that because real computers are in practice capable of real-time operation, that somehow real-world computations are too. That's not the case. A typical Pascal or C program, which doesn't use operating system calls or real time extensions, is a pure computation, with no real time features. It would be possible to write a sophisticated simulation of a neuron in Pascal. Such a simulation could not replace a real neuron.

 

[westprog]

As for Turing machines, I see no reason to limit ourselves to them. I certainly was not doing so.

Well, the argument so far is about the Turing model. If you want to argue on a different basis you can choose sides and fight your corner on that basis.