Has consciousness been fully explained?

[Ichneumonwasp]

Well, that's why I keep defining what I mean. I find that the slippery concept of a simulation is being used to mean different things to prove different things.

I know that it's possible to replace a leg with a wooden simulated leg, and that it's not possible to replace it with a computer program that simulates the action of a leg. I know the difference, and I'm trying to get people to say what kind of simulation they mean.

Personally I don't believe that the world is a planck level simulation, but I can't prove that it isn't.

The simulation proposed is defined. No one has changed its meaning as far as I can tell in this discussion. However, different uses of the world 'simulation' have been employed.

I don't believe the world is a simulation either. It's just a thought experiment.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Which is perfectly fine. I'm well able to tell the difference between a computer and a rock. I can also tell the difference between a person and a computer. In fact, if asked to choose the odd one out between a chunk of unrefined silicon, a chunk of refined silicon with wires, and Keira Knightley, I know what I'd pick.

Good, so can we let this go because I can see no purpose that side of the discussion serves?

 

[rocketdodger]

Then what does this particular thought experiment prove, or disprove? How does the use of a device that duplicates the physical action of a neuron cast doubt on the contention by Piggy and myself that consciousness is tied to particular physical activity?

It's always been the computational claim that's been disputed.

It proves that you don't know what you are talking about.

If you replace a single neuron with a physical device that uses a computer to simulate the internal action of a neuron and a suitable interface so it works transparently, and the brain is still conscious, then why can't you keep going?

Why can't you replace the whole neuron with a simulation and suitable interface to neighbor neurons?

Why can't you replace a group of neurons with a simulation and suitable interface to neighbor groups?

Why can't you replace the whole brain with a simulation and suitable interface to the body?

Why can't you replace the whole body with a simulation and suitable interface to the real world?

Why?

Why?

Why?

 

[rocketdodger]

Going further afield, for things as complex as computers at least higher primate intelligence would be needed to notice an apppreciable difference from a rock.

Completely wrong.

First, computers notice the difference between other computers and a rock. So you dont' need any life at all, once the computers are constructed.

Second, any organism capable of sensing light, vibration, heat, or any change in the environment at all can notice the difference between a computer and a rock.

Because -- surprise!!! -- computers are objectively different from rocks. Thus anything capable of detecting objective differences between things is capable of ... detecting the difference.

How has this conversation become so stupid? You people really can't be this ignorant of plain scientific facts ...

EDIT -- make that the concept of facts to begin with. Objective reality. Logic. *sigh*

 

[AlBell]

Completely wrong.

First, computers notice the difference between other computers and a rock. So you dont' need any life at all, once the computers are constructed.

Under 'no humans left' who cares?

Second, any organism capable of sensing light, vibration, heat, or any change in the environment at all can notice the difference between a computer and a rock.

Until the power goes off the heat might be useful for something living.

Because -- surprise!!! -- computers are objectively different from rocks. Thus anything capable of detecting objective differences between things is capable of ... detecting the difference.

Yup, back to living things.

How has this conversation become so stupid? You people really can't be this ignorant of plain scientific facts ...

EDIT -- make that the concept of facts to begin with. Objective reality. Logic. *sigh*

You may need to remind us how much smarter than most you are, bless your heart.

 

[rocketdodger]

That's also not at issue. What's at issue is the claim that cells and computers have a physical commonality that doesn't apply to rocks.

The rest is diversionary tactics.

The issue is one and the same.

1) There are objective differences between cells and rocks.
2) These objective differences stem from differences in the way things happen in cells vs. rocks.
3) Those differences in the way things happen can be analyzed.
4) Even children can see this analysis reveals that a cell's "cell' behavior comes from what adults call switching. That is the foundation of all known mechanisms that makes something alive vs. dead.
5) Transistors -- what computers are made of -- switch. Just like an enzyme+substrate complex. Just like a membrane receptor. Just like the feedback sequence that contols cell division. Just like any of the biochemical interactions that make life ... life.
6) Transistors lead to the objective behavior of computers that is different from rocks.
7) Thus computers and cells are different from rocks in a very similar way -- computers and cells objective behavior is primarily due to switching. A rock might contain switching but in general a rock's objective behavior has nothing to do with switching.


What don't you comprehend about this? The argument is -- and has always been -- crystal clear.

 

[Drachasor]

That's entirely contrary to the physical definition of information.

Wiki on Physical information

The engineering definitions of information deal with the exchange of information between human beings.

It isn't contrary at all. Physically speaking, there's information in the rock. If it just sits there's then there's an interaction of forces that doesn't change that information though.

 

[Drachasor]

Personally I don't believe that the world is a planck level simulation, but I can't prove that it isn't.

Meaning that the difference between simulated consciousness and biological consciousness is something that's essentially non-existent.

I think a physical turing machine could run such a simulation for what it is worth for the debate you care about. It would probably run it pretty slowly, but that wouldn't change the perceived speed of time inside the simulation. Ethically speaking, I don't see how blowing up the machine would be different from blowing up the Earth.

 

[AlBell]

-- in the absence of valuation there are no values. Of course we can agree to that.

But that has nothing to do with the differences between computers and rocks.

What is providing the values that differentiates computers from rocks if it isn't living things?

Agreed that when a conscious computer exists, it could assign values. Would it see value in humans, or any biological life?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

What is providing the values that differentiates computers from rocks if it isn't living things?

Again, I'm afraid this is not a useful question because computers don't exist without us creating them. Once created, however, there are clear differences between a computer and a rock even in the radical absence of humans.

Agreed that when a conscious computer exists, it could assign values. Would it see value in humans, or any biological life?

I would say that depends upon the values we define for them. We did not have any say in the values placed in us, though we can clearly create secondary valuations; a conscious computer should be the same.

If we create conscious computers, then I want Asimov's three laws of robotics center stage.

 

[westprog]

It proves that you don't know what you are talking about.

If you replace a single neuron with a physical device that uses a computer to simulate the internal action of a neuron and a suitable interface so it works transparently, and the brain is still conscious, then why can't you keep going?

Why can't you replace the whole neuron with a simulation and suitable interface to neighbor neurons?

Why can't you replace a group of neurons with a simulation and suitable interface to neighbor groups?

Why can't you replace the whole brain with a simulation and suitable interface to the body?

Why can't you replace the whole body with a simulation and suitable interface to the real world?

Why?

Why?

Why?

I'm amazed that after all this time you fail to understand the difference between a computational process, and a real-time process. I've done my best to explain it but clearly something is lacking.

Perhaps this paper might be of some help, describing as it does the basic problems involved.

Replacing a neuron with a device that can perform the function of a neuron doesn't tell us anything about whether a Turing equivalent computation can produce consciousness, which is the claim that's being disputed. I'm amazed that this point is being totally missed.

There's nothing in the above thought experiment which either refutes the physicalist position, or supports the computationalist viewpoint. You only get from the single neuron replacement to a simulation by handwaving and dodging the issues.

 

[westprog]

Completely wrong.

First, computers notice the difference between other computers and a rock. So you dont' need any life at all, once the computers are constructed.

Second, any organism capable of sensing light, vibration, heat, or any change in the environment at all can notice the difference between a computer and a rock.

Because -- surprise!!! -- computers are objectively different from rocks. Thus anything capable of detecting objective differences between things is capable of ... detecting the difference.

How has this conversation become so stupid? You people really can't be this ignorant of plain scientific facts ...

EDIT -- make that the concept of facts to begin with. Objective reality. Logic. *sigh*

A rock can detect the difference between a chisel and a stick of celery. That's objective reality.

This is why I chose the .sig I have - because the field of artificial intelligence is one where inappropriate terms like "notice" are regularly used for inanimate objects. A computer doesn't "notice" other computers, any more than a mousetrap "notices" a mouse. A computer is not an "organism". Using descriptions like this is bad engineering and bad science. Naturally such a diatribe finishes with an appeal to plain scientific facts, logic and objective reality, in the usual cargo-cult way, as demons to be placated rather than a way to think.

 

[westprog]

It isn't contrary at all. Physically speaking, there's information in the rock. If it just sits there's then there's an interaction of forces that doesn't change that information though.

I suppose that you could keep a rock on a totally stable platform at absolute zero, and minimise the amount of information being passed around. It would be much harder than say, unplugging a computer.

If you are dealing with a normal rock out in the sun, huge amounts of information are passing back and forth within it. How could there not be?

 

[rocketdodger]

I'm amazed that after all this time you fail to understand the difference between a computational process, and a real-time process. I've done my best to explain it but clearly something is lacking.

Likewise I am amazed that you still think there is a difference, given that nothing in the universe functions outside of time. Where is this elusive "computational process" that is not constrained by the laws of nature, westprog?

Where?

Where?

When anyone who knows what they are talking about -- obviously you are not included -- speaks of a "computational process" they just mean a process that behaves in a way that can be described using the ideas of computation. Period. End of story.

The only person talking about some abstract Turing machine is you. You are alone in this.

Replacing a neuron with a device that can perform the function of a neuron doesn't tell us anything about whether a Turing equivalent computation can produce consciousness, which is the claim that's being disputed. I'm amazed that this point is being totally missed.

Wrong. It tells us, at the very least, that it isn't some magic fairy dust limited to biological neurons that is responsible for consciousness.

In other words, a step in the right direction.

And furthermore, if the replacement neuron functions due to turing equivalent computation it tells us, at the very least, that part of the "physical" function necessary for consciousness can be handled by turing equivalent computation -- of any kind.

There's nothing in the above thought experiment which either refutes the physicalist position, or supports the computationalist viewpoint. You only get from the single neuron replacement to a simulation by handwaving and dodging the issues.

What are you talking about? What issues are being dodged?

The only person dodging is you -- why can't you just answer the post?

Why does replacing a single neuron not destroy consciousness, while replacing all of them does?

Why?

Why?

 

[rocketdodger]

A rock can detect the difference between a chisel and a stick of celery. That's objective reality.

What a stupid thing to say.

How does a rock detect such a difference, westprog?

Suppose we put a rock, a chisel, and a stick of celery on a table.

How does the rock detect the difference, westprog?

How?

How?

 

[westprog]

What a stupid thing to say.

How does a rock detect such a difference, westprog?

Suppose we put a rock, a chisel, and a stick of celery on a table.

How does the rock detect the difference, westprog?

How?

How?

You hit it with the celery and you hit it with the chisel. Simples.

How does a computer tell the difference between different IP address? Because you enter code to tell it what to do.

That you use language as a way of making your computer seem more human like doesn't mean anything more than people who stick faces on their vacuum cleaners. The computer isn't choosing what to do.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

The computer isn't choosing what to do.

But it could if we programmed it to do so. We don't because it is a tool and we want predictable performance, but there is no absolute barrier to a computer choosing one thing over another.

 

[Meed]

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.

Non sequitur. My post said nothing about how the brain works.

So can I take it you're either unable or unwilling to answer the question? What do you think the definition of "information" is?

 

[rocketdodger]

You hit it with the celery and you hit it with the chisel. Simples.

But now a person is involved in the detection process.

A cell doesn't need a person to be involved -- it does the detection all by itself.

Do you dispute this?

How does a computer tell the difference between different IP address? Because you enter code to tell it what to do.

Completely different.

A running computer is a closed system. An intelligent entity gives it an initial state and everything else takes place inside the computer.

Your rock + chisel + celery system is not closed. The person must continue to contribute the whole time. They need to pick up the chisel, strike the rock, put the chisel down, pick up the celery, strike the rock, etc.

If you want to rig up some stupid contraption where the person can set up an initial state and everything else happens automatically, like in a computer, then you will have departed from your example of a rock "detecting" anything and just proven my point. Congratulations.

That you use language as a way of making your computer seem more human like doesn't mean anything more than people who stick faces on their vacuum cleaners. The computer isn't choosing what to do.

That you use language as a way of making your cell seem more human like doesn't mean anything more than people who stick faces on their vacuum cleaners. The cell isn't choosing what to do.

That you use language as a way of making your chipmunk seem more human like doesn't mean anything more than people who stick faces on their vacuum cleaners. The chipmunk isn't choosing what to do.

That you use language as a way of making your chimpanzee seem more human like doesn't mean anything more than people who stick faces on their vacuum cleaners. The chimpanzee isn't choosing what to do.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Non sequitur. My post said nothing about how the brain works.

So can I take it you're either unable or unwilling to answer the question? What do you think the definition of "information" is?

Could I take a crack at it? I think in most general terms, information is "not something else". It's weird, but much of it seems to be defined negatively; at least that's the way the nervous system seems to be set up, with surround inhibition and the like.