Has consciousness been fully explained?

[AkuManiMani]

I actually addressed this in the portion of my post that you sniped out:

The self-organizing energy controlling properties that allow single celled organisms to exist and behave as they do are an extremely scaled down version of the same capacity that allows us to control the organization of our surrounding environments to produce artificial constructs [i.e. art and technology].

That doesn't explain why you think consciousness is dependent on 'self-organizing energy controlling properties' - even if you think "controlling the organization of our surrounding environments to produce artificial constructs" is the essence of consciousness (and I'm not suggesting you do). What makes consciousness require 'self-organizing energy controlling properties' ?

Because the deliberate behaviors of conscious entities are themselves examples of such a processes.

Like I've already emphasized in previous posts, organisms are self-sustaining systems.
...
Non-living systems, like our present day electronic devices, do not all exhibit these properties.
...
They are not dynamically self-generating or self-sustaining. Living systems are the only systems that exhibit this property, and conscious systems exhibit this property so such an extent that they extend their creative and organizational capacities beyond the confines of their biological structure to the surrounding environments.

So what? what has that to do with consciousness? As long as the entity in question has energy to run its processes for a reasonable time (e.g. months, years, or decades) why should it matter that it will eventually fail? As I said before, living things also fail and die.

And when they do die they lose their ability to not only support consciousness but to continue to maintain their unstable structural configuration. Life is not the sum of an organism's material components and functions but the process that organizes and utilizes such for some purpose(s). As of now, our machines are nothing but the sum of their assembled components & functions and they have no purpose beyond those defined by the living conscious entities who made them. They are projections and extensions of our consciousness and lack any life or direction of their own. The difference between living organisms that support consciousness and non-living machines isn't a matter of expiration date, but of process; the latter cannot achieve the capabilities of the former without itself being alive/conscious.

In humans this capacity is expressed in our material culture.

So what? Are you saying it isn't consciousness unless it expresses some form of culture?

No, I'm saying that material culture is a product of consciousness. Its an extension of the biological self-making capacities [i.e. autopioesis] into the external environment. Such capabilities are a hallmark of life and consciousness itself.

I suspect that whatever property allows single celled organisms to self-generate and self-sustain is either a physical requisite of consciousness, or a rudimentary level of consciousness.

You say you suspect metabolism is prerequisite for consciousness - but you still haven't explained why.

Because such systems exhibit properties that necessarily distinguish the behaviors of conscious systems from non-conscious: they do not run down the thermodynamic path of least resistance, by default. As soon as they lose this property they cease being conscious and cease being alive soon thereafter.

Are you saying you suspect life is necessary for consciousness? If so, why not just come right out and say it? And explain why you think that.

Erm, I'm pretty sure thats what I've been painstakingly arguing for the passed several pages now. What conversation have you been following?

 

[AkuManiMani]

Computation is a general abstraction of what a given system is doing. The abstraction itself is not identical to what is physically occurring in the system.

So what?

An abstraction is a reference to an archetype member of an equivalence class, which is itself just a collection of references that humans (or any intelligent entity) consider alike in some way.

And every reference has a referrent. Meaning, there are many things referred to by the class archetyped by the abstraction "computation." Just as there are many things referred to by the class archetyped by the abstraction "running" or "crystallization" or "growth" etc.

I wish people would stop getting stuck on the strawman that just because computation is an abstraction it is somehow less real than any other process. So is cooking. Cooking is an abstraction. Cooking is not identical to what physically occurs when you bake a cake. Cooking is just what we call it when things bake (among other things ).

Consciousness is not derived from computation; computation is derived from consciousness. Computation is an abstraction and consciousness is what generates abstractions in order to structure and define its experiences in useful ways.

 

[PixyMisa]

Oh my goodness. You really have tied yourself in a semantic pretzel there.

There is an abstract concept of computation. There is an abstract concept of consciousness.

There are physical processes of computation. There are physical processes of consciousness. The abstract concept is not the same as the physical process in either case, and it is an error to treat it as such, and a logical fallacy to switch meanings while using the term without the qualifier.

Physical processes of consciousness are invariably physical processes of computation, but not vice versa.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Oh my goodness. You really have tied yourself in a semantic pretzel there.

There is an abstract concept of computation. There is an abstract concept of consciousness.

There are physical processes of computation. There are physical processes of consciousness. The abstract concept is not the same as the physical process in either case, and it is an error to treat it as such, and a logical fallacy to switch meanings while using the term without the qualifier.

Physical processes of consciousness are invariably physical processes of computation, but not vice versa.

I am once again dazzled by the depths of your insight and argumentative skills. My mind cannot fathom an intellect of your magnitude.

 

[rocketdodger]

Do you suggest any of that applies when life (& consciousness) is not available to notice?

Not really, because outside of living systems you hardly ever see a system doing what life does with computations.

Think of it this way:

All over the universe, there are a ton of systems performing isolated computations by chance. It never goes anywhere -- their behavior just happens to satisfy the definition I provided.

Sometimes, by sheer brute force of statistics, one computation might lead to another. And even more rare, 3 in a row. On and on.

And sometimes, a series of computations -- by chance -- increases the statistical probability that the system exhibiting them will continue to exist in a form that exhibits the computations or similar computations. In other words, because of the computations the system exists longer, and then more computations that allow to exist even longer might occur, and so on and so forth.

Now, look at this -- you have a spectrum from the most ancient such system, with the most serial computations, to the youngest such system, with the least amount of serial computations:

1) Life as a single system -- billions of years
2) Organism populations and species -- millions of years (and less )
3) Individual organisms -- hundreds of years (and less )
4) Cells -- years (and less )
4a) Cellular components - years (and less )
5) Certain biochemical complexes (self replicating nucleotides, etc) -- months (and less )

Isn't that amazing? It is like the reverse of how we think Abiogenesis occured ... hmm, I wonder why?

So to find a series of computations that "matter" to the system exhibiting them in this way is very rare outside of life -- on our planet, almost every such system is already a part of life to begin with.

 

[westprog]

Which process? Do you mean like computational neuroscience? There are already textbooks written in that field and it is a big part of all interdisciplinary cognitive science programs. Case Western has a relatively new department that started a few years ago. There are others around the country as well.

But that wasn't the context - it was the claim that life was computation - or that the processes of life equate to computation. (The precise nature of the claim isn't critical).

That brain processes equate to computation is a claim that some people are making. If anyone in the field of biology is making the same claim about life in general, I've missed it.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

But that wasn't the context - it was the claim that life was computation - or that the processes of life equate to computation. (The precise nature of the claim isn't critical).

That brain processes equate to computation is a claim that some people are making. If anyone in the field of biology is making the same claim about life in general, I've missed it.

That's why I asked about which process. I don't know anyone making the claim in biology as a whole, but I don't work in that general field. It's used frequently in neuroscience, which is part of the biological sciences.

 

[Malerin]

Pixy, can you clarify something?

You say that "consciousness is SRIP" (you say it quite often)

Does that mean you think SRIP is necessary and sufficient for consciousness? This would explain your insistence that anything that does SRIP is conscious: washing machines, cars, people, etc.

Or do you think SRIP is a necessary condition for consciousness? That is a much weaker claim that I don't think you're making, but I could be wrong. If that is the case, then it's possible not everything that engages in SRIP is conscious. But I've never seen you claim that an instance of SRIP isn't consciousness. It's always been the other way around.

If you are making this weaker claim of necessary, but not sufficient, condition, why would you claim "consciousness is SRIP"? That would be like claiming "fire is oxygen". If the latter is your claim, then I would like to know what other necesssary conditions are needed for consciousness. You've claimed to have created conscious programs. How do you know they're conscious? How do you know modern appliances and cars are conscious?

A third alternative is that you think SRIP is merely sufficient for consciousness; that consciousness might not involve SRIP at all. But I don't think you believe that.

 

[AlBell]

Not really, because outside of living systems you hardly ever see a system doing what life does with computations.

Think of it this way:

All over the universe, there are a ton of systems performing isolated computations by chance. It never goes anywhere -- their behavior just happens to satisfy the definition I provided.

Sometimes, by sheer brute force of statistics, one computation might lead to another. And even more rare, 3 in a row. On and on.

And sometimes, a series of computations -- by chance -- increases the statistical probability that the system exhibiting them will continue to exist in a form that exhibits the computations or similar computations. In other words, because of the computations the system exists longer, and then more computations that allow to exist even longer might occur, and so on and so forth.

Now, look at this -- you have a spectrum from the most ancient such system, with the most serial computations, to the youngest such system, with the least amount of serial computations:

1) Life as a single system -- billions of years
2) Organism populations and species -- millions of years (and less )
3) Individual organisms -- hundreds of years (and less )
4) Cells -- years (and less )
4a) Cellular components - years (and less )
5) Certain biochemical complexes (self replicating nucleotides, etc) -- months (and less )

Isn't that amazing? It is like the reverse of how we think Abiogenesis occured ... hmm, I wonder why?

So to find a series of computations that "matter" to the system exhibiting them in this way is very rare outside of life -- on our planet, almost every such system is already a part of life to begin with.

So now you've extended your, as yet unjustifiable, claim from "consciousness is computation" to "life is computation".

Life still appears to be the beginning of 'computation' rather than the end.

 

[PixyMisa]

Pixy, can you clarify something?

You say that "consciousness is SRIP" (you say it quite often)

Does that mean you think SRIP is necessary and sufficient for consciousness?

I'm saying that when we refer to consciousness in our vague handwavey way, what we are talking about, if we take time to analyze it carefully, is self-referential information processing.

I'm saying that consciousness is self-referential information processing the way water is H₂O. It's a definition and an observation and a hypothesis depending on which end you hold it by. To apply it as a hypothesis though, you need to select a specific, well-defined observable behaviour that is accepted as an aspect of consciousness, because, as I've said before, you can't form a hypothesis to explain something you haven't defined.

 

[Galteeth]

I'm reminded of the Kierkegaard quote "The self is a relation relating to itself."

 

[Malerin]

Pixy, can you clarify something?

You say that "consciousness is SRIP" (you say it quite often)

Does that mean you think SRIP is necessary and sufficient for consciousness?

I'm saying that when we refer to consciousness in our vague handwavey way, what we are talking about, if we take time to analyze it carefully, is self-referential information processing.

Let's just start simply:

Consciousness occurs if and only if SRIP occurs.

Yes or No?

SRIP occurs if and only if consciousness occurs.

Yes or No?

 

[bruto]

I tried asking my washing machine for clarification but it just got agitated.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Let's just start simply:

Consciousness occurs if and only if SRIP occurs.

Yes or No?

SRIP occurs if and only if consciousness occurs.

Yes or No?

I'm pretty sure it's always meant that SRIP=consciousness.

 

[PixyMisa]

Let's just start simply:

Consciousness occurs if and only if SRIP occurs.

Yes or No?

SRIP occurs if and only if consciousness occurs.

Yes or No?

Consciousness IS self-referential information processing.

This is what I deleted from my previous reply before I posted it. Guess I should have left it in.



It's rather like this:

We have a room full of people talking about water, which is wet, and sometimes it's blue, and sometimes it's greenish, and you can sail boats on it...

And I say H₂O, and half the room looks at me as if I've grown a third eye, and they say, no, water, the stuff that comes out of a tap. And the other half of the room looks at them and says, yeah, that's H₂O. And the first half says something like but hydrogen isn't wet, so water can't be made of hydrogen, and the second half make a rush for the bar all at once.

 

[PixyMisa]

I'm pretty sure it's always meant that SRIP=consciousness.

But the other way round, really.

Consciousness is a term we want to define. Self-referential information processing is the definiton.

I don't say that self-referential information processing causes consciousness, any more that I'd say that H₂O causes water.

 

[Malerin]

Consciousness IS self-referential information processing.

Then it is necessary and sufficient. If X = Y, then X if and only if Y and vice-versa. Examples:

Water = H2O

Water is present if and only if H2O is present. H2O is present if and only if water is present.

Or

New York IS the largest city in America.

You are in New York if and only if you are in the largest city in America, and vice versa.

Or

"Today is the Fourth of July" is a necessary and sufficient condition for "today is Independence Day in the United States."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_sufficient_condition

I'm giving a lot of examples because I want it to be clear that you're claiming
SRIP is a necessary and sufficient condition for consciousness and vice-versa.

Agreed?

 

[PixyMisa]

Then it is necessary and sufficient. If X = Y, then X if and only if Y and vice-versa. Examples:

Water = H2O

Water is present if and only if H2O is present. H2O is present if and only if water is present.

Or

New York IS the largest city in America.

You are in New York if and only if you are in the largest city in America, and vice versa.

Or

"Today is the Fourth of July" is a necessary and sufficient condition for "today is Independence Day in the United States."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_sufficient_condition

I'm giving a lot of examples because I want it to be clear that you're claiming
SRIP is a necessary and sufficient condition for consciousness and vice-versa.

Agreed?

No. There's something important but subtle that you've ignored.

A necessary and sufficient condition is a relationship between two distinct things. We don't have that here.

Self-referential information processing is not a condition for consciousness. You don't start out with self-referential information processing and find that consciousness is a result.

Consciousness is self-referential information processing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_equivalence

 

[AkuManiMani]

No. There's something important but subtle that you've ignored.

A necessary and sufficient condition is a relationship between two distinct things. We don't have that here.

Self-referential information processing is not a condition for consciousness. You don't start out with self-referential information processing and find that consciousness is a result.

Consciousness is self-referential information processing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_equivalence

So is it:

(SRIP (Consciousness))

or

(Consciousness (SRIP))

or

(Consciousnes=SRIP)?

 

[Malerin]

No. There's something important but subtle that you've ignored.

A necessary and sufficient condition is a relationship between two distinct things. We don't have that here.

Self-referential information processing is not a condition for consciousness. You don't start out with self-referential information processing and find that consciousness is a result.

Consciousness is self-referential information processing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_equivalence

But what about here:

Logical equivalence is a type of relationship between two statements or sentences in propositional logic or Boolean algebra. The relation translates verbally into "if and only if"
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci833433,00.html

And also


Certainly it is the case that when A is logically equivalent to B, "A iff B" is true.

And...

Examples:

A person is a bachelor iff that person is a marriageable man who has never married.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_and_only_if
That is to say: Being a bachelor is a necessary and sufficient condition for being a marriageable man who has never married.

Bachelors are logically equivalent to marriageable men who have never been married, are they not?

The SRIP claim is very similar:

A process is conscious iff that process is SRIP.

Also, if SRIP is logically equivalent to consciousness, as Pixy claims, then SRIP iff conciousness. Which means SRIP is a necessary and sufficient condition for consciousness.

ETA:

The statement "P if and only if Q", a biconditional statement, means the same thing as "P implies Q, and Q implies P". Other equivalent meanings include "P is logically equivalent to Q", and "P is a necessary and sufficient condition for Q".
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Logically_equivalent