• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Explain consciousness to the layman.

Status
Not open for further replies.
That's an excellent utilitarian description. It's obviously anthropocentric. Algorithms are something we use. Performing an algorithm is something human beings do.


Nonsense.

What I described was what 'computer' used to mean - it involved people because we hadn't yet learned to offload that work onto machines.

For an algorithm to be meaningful as a physical action, seperately from human concerns - something that can be objectively described without reference to human wishes and intentions - it has to be specified in physical terms.


Nonsense.

I don't "supposedly" have a background in programming. I've demonstrated my understanding of the concepts. So if I am questioning the meaning of a very well understood term like "algorithm", it might be worth a second glance at what I'm saying to try to figure out what I'm getting at. That second glance would reveal the word "physically", which is the critical element of the question.

I hate to downplay my own importance, but my own background, beliefs and personality are really not very significant in the context of the possible creation of artificial consciousness. I don't know why they get more attention.


You have been wrong on a great many issues related to computers, computation, computability, reasoning, intelligence, and artificial intelligence (just to scratch the surface).

You have demonstrated your understanding of relevant concepts - it isn't very good.

You often do not use terms the way that the rest of us (especially professionals) do. The onus is on you to adapt, not us.
 
That's an excellent utilitarian description. It's obviously anthropocentric. Algorithms are something we use. Performing an algorithm is something human beings do.

For an algorithm to be meaningful as a physical action, seperately from human concerns - something that can be objectively described without reference to human wishes and intentions - it has to be specified in physical terms.

If we had to describe electricity as something we use to turn lights on so we can read at nighttime, it would be true, but obviously wouldn't constitute a physical description of electricity. A physical description would describe electricity in terms of how physical quantities interact, rather than its usefulness.



I don't "supposedly" have a background in programming. I've demonstrated my understanding of the concepts. So if I am questioning the meaning of a very well understood term like "algorithm", it might be worth a second glance at what I'm saying to try to figure out what I'm getting at. That second glance would reveal the word "physically", which is the critical element of the question.

I hate to downplay my own importance, but my own background, beliefs and personality are really not very significant in the context of the possible creation of artificial consciousness. I don't know why they get more attention.

Computers don't do algorithms?
 
I'd prefer to discuss the issues than discuss not discussing the issues. Complexity has a full physical definition of an algorithm, but since he wants to keep it a secret, can anyone else help out?

I gave one already. Like always, you prefer to grandstand to the crowd ( why refer to Complexity in the third person in a response to him ? )

rocketdodger said:
How about "a series of steps in a process?"

Do you disagree that any number of the step-by-step reactions that occur in bacteria, for example, that allow them to behave as a living organism could be considered algorithms?

I am not sure what else you would call the cellular control mechanisms displayed by life, if not an algorithm.
 
I'd prefer to discuss the issues than discuss not discussing the issues. Complexity has a full physical definition of an algorithm, but since he wants to keep it a secret, can anyone else help out?


I never said anything about a "full physical definition of an algorithm".

The word 'algorithm' has a clear and unambiguous definition, as you would know if you knew anything about computer science.

Find a good definition of 'algorithm' on your own.

Your inane insistence on bringing 'physical' into this discussion will be ignored.
 
I see little need for precise definitions here.
There's your problem.

Life emerged from inanimate matter with features (behaviors), which developed into consciousness later on. These features were from the beginning what distinguished it from that inanimate matter.
Which features, exactly? (I'm wondering if you have the vaguest idea what you're talking about).

One could even consider that life and consciousness are one and the same thing
There are plenty of things you could consider to be one and the same thing if you eschew the need for precise definitions. It doesn't help at all.

Is a virus alive? a prion? a crystal? are any of them conscious?

Now if in the future humanity produced a living machine
What would a 'living machine' look like? what would distinguish it from a non-living machine - would it be constructed of biological material? organic material?

I see no reason to consider that inanimate machines or computers can be conscious in any sense, the best they can do is mimic it.
The difference is what? i.e. how would you tell?
 
Why don't you?

I'm of the opinion that there is no viable physical description of an algorithm. Any attempt to define it ends up including too much or too little.

If a definition involves intentionality, it means that we have a circular definition - one that defines consciousness as something created by an algorithm, and an algorithm as something created by a conscious person.
 
Then ask "why is it always about me".

You're talking to Rocketdodger about how self-obsessed I am?

I would like to talk about an objective, physical description of an algorithm that doesn't refer to intentionality or purpose. If it is being claimed that the subjective experience of executing a particular algorithm on a computer can be identical to the subjective experience of a human being, then I'd like an objective experience of what "executing an algorithm" actually means.

I'd like to talk about that, but I don't expect to.
 
I gave one already. Like always, you prefer to grandstand to the crowd ( why refer to Complexity in the third person in a response to him ? )


Your definition can be sharpened up a bit.


Some conventional definitions of an algorithm include:
  • An algorithm is a process the execution of which is clearly specified to the smallest details.
  • An algorithm is a sequence of unambiguous instructions of finite length the execution of which is deterministic and will conclude after the execution of a finite number of instructions.
  • Any sequence of operations that can be simulated by a Turing-complete system
An algorithm is generally assumed to be deterministic, terminating, and non-quantum unless otherwise stated.

Here are some selections from the first few pages of Hans Hermes' book Enumerability - Decidability - Computability (from which I learned recursive function theory, Turing machines, etc.):
"An algorithm is a general procedure such that for any appropriate question the answer can be obtained by the use of a simple calculation according to a specified method."

"In this book we shall understand by a general procedure a process the execution of which is clearly specified to the smallest details. Among other things this means that we must be able to express the instructions for the execution of the process in finitely long text.
"There is no room left for the practice of the creative imagination of the executer. He has to work slavishly according to the instructions given to him, which determine everything to the smallest detail."

"In this book we want to adopt the convention of calling procedures general procedures only if the way of proceeding is completely unambiguous."

"There are terminating algorithms, whereas other algorithms can be continued as long as we like [e.g. calculating the square root]."

[] added by Complexity.
From the Wikipedia article on 'algorithm':
In mathematics and computer science, an algorithm i/ˈælɡərɪðəm/ (from Algoritmi, the Latin form of Al-Khwārizmī) is a step-by-step procedure for calculations. More precisely, it is an effective method expressed as a finite list[1] of well-defined instructions[2] for calculating a function.[3] Algorithms are used for calculation, data processing, and automated reasoning.
Starting from an initial state and initial input (perhaps empty),[4] the instructions describe a computation that, when executed, will proceed through a finite [5] number of well-defined successive states, eventually producing "output"[6] and terminating at a final ending state. The transition from one state to the next is not necessarily deterministic; some algorithms, known as randomized algorithms, incorporate random input.[7]
While there is no generally accepted formal definition of "algorithm," an informal definition could be "a set of rules that precisely defines a sequence of operations."[11] For some people, a program is only an algorithm if it stops eventually; for others, a program is only an algorithm if it stops before a given number of calculation steps.[12]
 
I'm of the opinion that there is no viable physical description of an algorithm. Any attempt to define it ends up including too much or too little.

If a definition involves intentionality, it means that we have a circular definition - one that defines consciousness as something created by an algorithm, and an algorithm as something created by a conscious person.


Nonsense.
 
There's your problem.


Which features, exactly? (I'm wondering if you have the vaguest idea what you're talking about).
Your usually air of superiority I see.

There are plenty of things you could consider to be one and the same thing if you eschew the need for precise definitions. It doesn't help at all.
I am suggesting that consciousness is not generated by computation, but rather by life. We can go into detail and precise definitions if you like, the result will be the same.

Humanity has worked out how the biological brain works and drawn similarities with computation. The presumption here is that such computation if carried out would generate consciousness, I agree if carried out by a living brain.
It is assumed that it would also generate consciousness in a non-living machine. Can you justify this assumption?

Is a virus alive? a prion? a crystal? are any of them conscious?
I would define life for these purposes as biological cellular life, as this is what the brain is an aggregation of.


What would a 'living machine' look like? what would distinguish it from a non-living machine - would it be constructed of biological material? organic material?
I haven't a clue, nor does, I think, anyone else.

The difference is what? i.e. how would you tell?
How is an inanimate machine different from a living brain. Given that it is performing the same computation, mimicking to perfection?

Well one is alive, one is not. The one thats alive knows something, the one that isn't is no more alive than a stone, it is incapable of knowing anything.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom