Has consciousness been fully explained?

[rocketdodger]

Because a wheel is a circle or, rather, possesses circular properties. Now, when one says "a square can't replace a wheel" one could mean "an abstract geometrical shape can't replace an actual physical object", which would be trite and pointless. What one would be assumed to mean would be "a square profile solid object could not be used as a wheel, which requires and object with a circular profile.

Exactly. Thats why I call you out as displaying dishonest tactics. Everyone here knows that for the last 3 years you have been harping on about ideal turing machines vs. actual physical objects.

Everyone has thought your arguments were trite and pointless -- everyone knows an abstract thing can't replace a physical one.

Furthermore, since all computers are turing machines, and all computers are perfectly capable of operating in the time domain, your latter statement above is inapplicable as well.

Similarly, when I say "a Turing machine can't be used for monitoring and control" I don't mean "a Turing machine is an abstract concept which can't do things in real life", I mean "a Turing machine as implemented according to its specification cannot perform monitoring and control, though it can perform computations."

Why can a turing machine, implemented according to its specification, not perform monitoring and control? Because the specification doesn't include the required time domain parameters? Nonsense. I can claim the same of any of your control mechanisms -- if I try to hook them up to something too fast or too slow for their specifications, they won't work.

If it is a real machine, what is the reason? Because it doesn't account for time? Nonsense, if it is a real machine of course it accounts for time. Because it is too slow? Well, it can monitor and control slow stuff, no? Because it is too fast? Well it can monitor and control fast stuff, no?

If you don't mean an abstract turing machine, then the time problem no longer exists -- all machines in reality deal with the time domain.

What is the difference between a real turing machine and any of your control mechanisms that you yourself have worked with?

The constant stream of snide unpleasantness doesn't characterise someone in any way sure of his arguments. IWasp seems able to debate like a decent adult human being, so I don't accept that it's necessary to constantly act like a bad-tempered petulant child.

Sorry, I don't let people get away with dishonest tactics. I know a thing or two about human nature and politics.

 

[Drachasor]

Sure the human imagination can do more than describe the universe.

or are you suggesting that mathematics was used to create the universe?

Human brain is made of atoms. Atoms can be fully described with math. Therefore, human imagination can be described with math. There's zero that can't be described with math there.

Plenty of math isn't good at describing reality by the way (that is there are fields of math that have no practical application), but there's nothing we know of in reality that cannot, in principle, be described using mathematics. That's just where all the evidence goes. Some things, like imagination or consciousness, are very complex and we are still working to understand them. Remember, describing things from the atomic scale up has the problem of not always being easily comprehended by our brains and also is computationally insane on a practical level. That doesn't change the fact that, in principle, there's nothing in this universe that cannot be fully described by math as best we understand reality.

Why this is doesn't matter at all. It only matters that it is.

 

[rocketdodger]

I dispute nothing. But I certainly cannot concur, either, as you've totally failed at backing your assertion.

I had been hoping for a mathematical description of at least some of the extremely interesting themes recurrent in the philosophy of mathematics, such as "what are the sources of mathematical subject matter", "what's the role of hermeneutics in mathematics", "what's the source and nature of mathematical truth", or "what's the relationship between the abstract world of mathematics and the material universe".

Yeah -- you are religious and you believe in magic.

How did this last exchange of ours serve to help your claim to the contrary?

 

[rocketdodger]

You mean concepts like justice, beauty, or your own consciousness?

I was not aware that science had no access to those things.

For example, scientists can measure the beauty of a woman by recording how men react to her.

For example, scientists can look at how much rioting a given jury verdict causes and determine whether a given percentage of the population felt it was unjust.

For example, I can perform experiments on my own consciousness. So can you, for that matter. So can anyone. Psychologists do it all the time.

Any more examples? I can do this all day.

 

[!Kaggen]

If the hidden agendas would stop poisoning the discussion, I would be glad to.

But, for instance, between you and Frank alone, we have two people who, just because they aren't well versed in mathematics and computer science AND have hidden spiritual agendas, happen to sincerely believe that things like human art and emotion are beyond the capability of mathematics to describe.

This is simply untrue -- your ability to understand, or even conceive of, such a description has no relevance to whether or not such a description can exist.

If you did not have your hidden spiritual agenda, you would be content to just say "I don't understand how mathematics could describe human art or love." But that isn't what you and Frank say, now is it? The phrase "I don't understand" never enters the picture when statements about mathematics are made by either of you.

Why is that?

EDIT and thanks for the bday wishes

Dodge, your mistaken dude, mathematics is my favorite subject and I have done mathematics to an undergrad level at uni.

I just don't buy the maths is discovered argument. Maths is a human invention. It is a language and we have other languages which are also just as useful to describe the world in which we find ourselves. Science, believe it or not, also uses these non-mathematical languages to describe the world. They are no less useful nor scientific than the language of mathematics.
A heck of a lot of maths for instance, is completely irrelevant to the real world, even by mathematicians own admittance. Does this mean its describing other worlds or just an exercise in logical thinking?

Its the hypnotic nature of the logic of mathematics within your line of expertise (computer scientists) which appears to be a hidden agenda if there are any in this discussion.

 

[!Kaggen]

Human brain is made of atoms. Atoms can be fully described with math. Therefore, human imagination can be described with math. There's zero that can't be described with math there.

Plenty of math isn't good at describing reality by the way (that is there are fields of math that have no practical application), but there's nothing we know of in reality that cannot, in principle, be described using mathematics. That's just where all the evidence goes. Some things, like imagination or consciousness, are very complex and we are still working to understand them. Remember, describing things from the atomic scale up has the problem of not always being easily comprehended by our brains and also is computationally insane on a practical level. That doesn't change the fact that, in principle, there's nothing in this universe that cannot be fully described by math as best we understand reality.

Why this is doesn't matter at all. It only matters that it is.

Please explain why all scientists are not just trained solely in how to use mathematics to describe there field of interest and we just stop using anything but mathematics when we write scientific papers?

Oh and try answering the question, is the universe designed using mathematics?

 

[Drachasor]

Please explain why all scientists are not just trained solely in how to use mathematics to describe there field of interest and we just stop using anything but mathematics when we write scientific papers?

Oh and try answering the question, is the universe designed using mathematics?

I don't know how the universe is designed. Before we knew about evolution we didn't know where the design in humans came from, that didn't prevent anyone from describing it.

And I answered your other question, read what I wrote again. In most areas going from the atomic scale up is cumbersome.

 

[!Kaggen]

I don't know how the universe is designed. Before we knew about evolution we didn't know where the design in humans came from, that didn't prevent anyone from describing it.

And I answered your other question, read what I wrote again. In most areas going from the atomic scale up is cumbersome.

Cumbersome?
Now that's a nice word.

Professor: I could describe the brain to you using mathematics today class, but I'll just stick to the normal way as it would be too cumbersome.

Student: Whats the point then of a mathematical description then Prof, if the normal one works just fine.

Professor:We don't believe in magic in my class, now pay attention....

 

[Meed]

Mathematics is the base language humans use to describe the world.

Logically, this implies that if there is no mathematical difference between two objects, a human cannot distinguish them.

Logic, piggy -- it is your friend. Well, maybe not your friend ...

Yet humans can distinguish between X and a perfect simulation of X. Otherwise the qualifier "simulation of" would not be necessary. Why do you think that is?

 

[Meed]

I don't know about everyone involved, but religious concerns are definitely not the case with Piggy and I suspect not the case with Cornsail or Frank Newgent.

Correct, I'm not religious. Not that it matters, because I haven't been making religious arguments either way.

 

[rocketdodger]

Yet humans can distinguish between X and a perfect simulation of X. Otherwise the qualifier "simulation of" would not be necessary. Why do you think that is?

And?

Obviously, a perfect simulation lends itself to a different mathematical description than a real object.

Just because the mathematical relationships between things within the sytem are the same, doesn't imply that the relationships between the system and other systems are the same.

I can't mathematically describe dropping a simulated orange on my foot. I can mathematically describe the relationship between the seeds of a simulated orange and the rind of a simulated orange. Just like a real orange.

The difference is in the relationship with external systems.

 

[Beth]

That said, whether something is metaphysical or not isn't about what we can do with current technology, it is about how the world works.

Metaphysical stuff covers magic like angels, god, etc, etc. If you think magic plays a role in consciousness, then you believe in metaphysics. If you think a person's identity and who they are is composed purely of the matter making up their brain and so forth (e.g. materialism of some sort), then you reject the metaphysical view.

Does consciousness or thinking fit your description of magical? Is consciousness and thinking composed purely of matter making the brain? Or is the pattern of relationships of the matter of the brain? If it is the latter (a viewpoint I favor myself), then that concept of consciousness seems to fit with what is typically described as metaphysical or dualistic viewpoints. Although that seems to vary depending on what is meant by metaphysical or dualistic.

And we need a general definition of information to talk about how the brain works....why?

You claimed earlier that such a definition existed and were asked to produce one. I can now conclude that you don't have such a definition.

What we label as "objective reality" isn't necessarily objective reality. Do you agree with that statement?

If we assume that objective reality exists separate from our existance (a reasonable assumption), then yes I agree.

 

[Meed]

And?

Obviously, a perfect simulation lends itself to a different mathematical description than a real object.

Just because the mathematical relationships between things within the sytem are the same, doesn't imply that the relationships between the system and other systems are the same.

I can't mathematically describe dropping a simulated orange on my foot. I can mathematically describe the relationship between the seeds of a simulated orange and the rind of a simulated orange. Just like a real orange.

The difference is in the relationship with external systems.

Exactly.

 

[rocketdodger]

.

I just don't buy the maths is discovered argument. Maths is a human invention. It is a language and we have other languages which are also just as useful to describe the world in which we find ourselves. Science, believe it or not, also uses these non-mathematical languages to describe the world. They are no less useful nor scientific than the language of mathematics.

But mathematics is the base language of humanity. Everything else reduces to it, by definition. When we find some behavior of the real world that mathematics can't account for, we simply change mathematics to make it work. Mathematics is the fundamental way we communicate relationships between things.

Saying something cannot be in principle described by mathematics is tantamount to saying that humans are unable to describe it.

Saying something is much easier to describe in a less formal language than it is to describe it in mathematics is not controversial. I agree 100%. But there is always in principle a mathematical description.[/QUOTE]

A heck of a lot of maths for instance, is completely irrelevant to the real world, even by mathematicians own admittance. Does this mean its describing other worlds or just an exercise in logical thinking?

It is just like any other fictional story -- constructed from an agreed upon language, describing things that do not correspond directly to any real system or sequence of events.

Its the hypnotic nature of the logic of mathematics within your line of expertise (computer scientists) which appears to be a hidden agenda if there are any in this discussion.

No, that is a misunderstanding. Math is just a language. It is the stuff math describes that has import. Nothing else.

 

[rocketdodger]

Exactly.

Well can't you see that the computationalist position is that the only thing of importance when it comes to consciousness is the internal relationships, not the external ones?

 

[Meed]

I'm not seeing much basis for your internal/external distinction. What you call "internal" is some subset of the simulator's behavior that can be isomorphically mapped to some other system. This is somewhat arbitrary, because there are practically an infinite number of subsets of its behavior that could be isomorphically mapped to an infinite number of imagined physical systems. Emphasizing one subset in particular to deem the machine's "internal behavior" is observer dependent.

 

[Frank Newgent]

I dispute nothing. But I certainly cannot concur, either, as you've totally failed at backing your assertion.

I had been hoping for a mathematical description of at least some of the extremely interesting themes recurrent in the philosophy of mathematics, such as "what are the sources of mathematical subject matter", "what's the role of hermeneutics in mathematics", "what's the source and nature of mathematical truth", or "what's the relationship between the abstract world of mathematics and the material universe".

Yeah -- you are religious and you believe in magic.

How did this last exchange of ours serve to help your claim to the contrary?

Oh my, I just remembered that today is my niece in Madison husband's birthday, also.

He spends the day in their basement reading "The Hobbit" and working on a University of Phoenix video game design course. For just over three and a half years now.

Jon, is that you?

 

[Drachasor]

Cumbersome?
Now that's a nice word.

Professor: I could describe the brain to you using mathematics today class, but I'll just stick to the normal way as it would be too cumbersome.

Student: Whats the point then of a mathematical description then Prof, if the normal one works just fine.

Professor:We don't believe in magic in my class, now pay attention....

Oh, we certainly could describe the brain using quantum mechanics. It would take at least a hundred times longer, or even millions or more, but we could do that.

It isn't like math isn't used to represent parts of the brain and describe how they function. Math is most certainly employed all over the place in studying the brain. They just down break down each part into a description of the quantum mechanics (which would get extremely complicated rapidly).

None of this invalidate the principle that the whole thing can be described with math. It just means that humans find more gross and immediate description more illuminating. Similarly (admittedly in a non-scientific setting), you can describe all the working parts of a car in terms of math, but people don't typically talk about cars using equations -- they COULD, but they don't.

 

[Drachasor]

Does consciousness or thinking fit your description of magical? Is consciousness and thinking composed purely of matter making the brain? Or is the pattern of relationships of the matter of the brain? If it is the latter (a viewpoint I favor myself), then that concept of consciousness seems to fit with what is typically described as metaphysical or dualistic viewpoints. Although that seems to vary depending on what is meant by metaphysical or dualistic.

It's composed purely of the matter of various sorts in the brain (remember that energy isn't a fundamental quantity, but something that makes sense only as an aspect of physical objects). The patterns and relationships in the brain are composed of matter. There's nothing dualistic about it, anymore than a computer doing a calculation is somehow not entirely physical because its components have physical relationships to each other.

Everything in the brain is composed of matter. Matter is all it is. Consciousness is composed of matter position in certain kinds of very, very complicated ways. That's my view, since there's no evidence of anything else.

You claimed earlier that such a definition existed and were asked to produce one. I can now conclude that you don't have such a definition.

I'm fairly certain I never claimed I needed a definition of information in general to talk about the brain. I've repeatedly said that. If I have said otherwise, I hereby retract such statements.

Again, why does one need a generalized definition of "information" to talk about the brain? Do you have any reason to request such a definition? What's the point?

If we assume that objective reality exists separate from our existance (a reasonable assumption), then yes I agree.

Good, that's a nice starting point. Personally I don't see the point in discussing detailed aspects of reality with people that don't acknowledge an objective reality exists. Seems like a waste of time to me (hence I was checking).

 

[westprog]

You know darn well that the phrase "cannot be mathematically described" means "there is no possible mathematical description."

Stop playing games -- are there things that cannot possibly be described using the language of mathematics, even by God himself, or not?

There's no scientific principle that insists that everything be describable by mathematics. It's not even a tenet of materialism.