Explain consciousness to the layman.

[punshhh]

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]
​

Ah, your determinism showing through, I see.

 

[Belz...]

Then there needs to be a definition of an algorithm that doesn't reference human beings and their intentions and needs.

There is.

 

[Belz...]

I'm not using logic.

I can tell.

I'm pointing out that it appears that living is a requirement for consciousness

How would you know what it "appears", since you have such a small sample ?

 

[Belz...]

I'm of the opinion that there is no viable physical description of an algorithm.

Is there a viable physical description of "motion" ?

 

[Belz...]

Ah, your determinism showing through, I see.

And ?

 

[Darat]

Well, you can say that it's something that isn't even defined, so there's no point in arguing about it. Or, you can argue that the basis of consciousness is now well understood, and that it's a matter of a particular type of computer programming.

I don't see how it's possible to maintain both positions, though.

False dichotomy.

 

[Darat]

I was not making an argument, I was illustrating my point.

I agree with your observations about definitions, however I see little need for precise definitions here. ...snip...

You don't agree with me about definitions else you couldn't go immediately to the following statement:

Life emerged from inanimate matter ...snip....

For that to be a meaningful statement you need to provide what definition you are using for "life". That's half the problem in these types of discussion people simply will not provide their definitions. It's the old idea that describing the problem is half the work needed to solving the problem.

 

[dlorde]

Your usually air of superiority I see.

Just trying to be honest about my motives. Why not just describe or enumerate the features you were talking about, so your statement can be evaluated? If you can't, you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

I am suggesting that consciousness is not generated by computation, but rather by life.
...
The presumption here is that such computation if carried out would generate consciousness, I agree if carried out by a living brain.

These two statements are contradictory. You say computation by a living brain can generate consciousness, but consciousness is not generated by computation. What do you really mean? do you think consciousness is result of computation or not?

I would define life for these purposes as biological cellular life, as this is what the brain is an aggregation of.

Life is [a certain sort of] life... not much of a definition is it?

If you arbitrarily restrict consciousness to 'life' then arbitrarily define life as the kind of element biological brains are based on, then by definition only biological brains can be conscious. Assertion by arbitrary definition is useless - I'm looking for reasons, explanations.

 

[PixyMisa]

Your usually air of superiority I see.

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.

Yes. Please go into detail and precise definitions, because so far as I can see, your statement is complete nonsense.

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?

By the power of Church-Turing I compel you!

I haven't a clue, nor does, I think, anyone else.

One out of two ain't bad.

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.

Begging the question.

 

[punshhh]

You don't agree with me about definitions else you couldn't go immediately to the following statement:

I do agree, perhaps a consensus on the definition of life can be achieved, which can then be added to the debate ( I won't hold my breath).

Do you agree that life emerged from inanimate matter?

For that to be a meaningful statement you need to provide what definition you are using for "life". That's half the problem in these types of discussion people simply will not provide their definitions. It's the old idea that describing the problem is half the work needed to solving the problem.

The problem is the assertion that the running of an "algorithm" results in consciousness.

This is a non sequitur, not least given the problems with a definition of consciousness.

Once this assertion is demonstrated producing a consciousness in the lab I will accept it and que up at the teleportation device.

 

[yy2bggggs]

I'm not using logic. I'm pointing out that it appears that living is a requirement for consciousness and that inanimate computation while operating in a similar manner is not conscious in the same way. It is always a toaster.

If consciousness could be generated by a non-living machine, everything you see would look exactly the same as it does to you right now. So when you say "it appears that", you're not talking about an observation. If that's the case, one would have to wonder by what process you came to this conclusion.

I posit that when you say "it appears that", you're merely describing your own personal prejudices, and that you have nothing legitimate to base those prejudices on.

 

[westprog]

Is there a viable physical description of "motion" ?

Is there a non-physical description of motion? I would have thought that motion was capable of being specified in terms of physical terms such as location and time - as opposed to non-physical, anthropocentric subjective terms like "instruction".

 

[westprog]

There is.

It might appear to be, but if terms such as "question", "answer" and "instruction" are used, there is an implied person involved. Certainly these are not physical quantities.

 

[westprog]

False dichotomy.

I really don't see how something can be dismissed as undefined, and fully explained at the same time.

I get the impression that some of the people claiming that computer consciousness is, or can be, entirely equivalent to human consciousness, are willing to simply discard the subjective experience aspect as being meaningless. Others simply insist that if the external behaviour can be sufficiently closely mimicked, the internal experience has to be the same.

 

[Darat]

I do agree, perhaps a consensus on the definition of life can be achieved, which can then be added to the debate ( I won't hold my breath).

Do you agree that life emerged from inanimate matter?

...snip...

That question is meaningless until you provide your definition of "life". And there is no need for a consensus for the definition it just requires the definition you are using for the word for your question to have meaning.

 

[Darat]

I really don't see how something can be dismissed as undefined, and fully explained at the same time.

...snip...

That's different to what you said (that I was responding to).

 

[westprog]

That's different to what you said (that I was responding to).

Then I'm happy to clarify my thinking.

 

[rocketdodger]

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]
​

Yes I agree those are more useful definitions, but the fact remains that any defined process with steps can be labeled an algorithm.

The point of taking that approach is it avoids westprog's whole "that isn't physical" nonsense. I know you want to ignore him, but it is more satisfying to actually show that he is wrong.

In this case, we can say 1) the behavior that the molecules in a bacterium exhibit when controlling the bacterium, for example controlling reproduction, is a process and 2) there are a series of steps that occur in that process that are always the same.

Hence, there is a clearly physical "algorithm." We can describe, in physical terms using physics and chemistry, the steps that occur. In this case the "steps" are equivalence classes of chemical reactions -- a clearly physical thing. If the process is different, the steps aren't the same, by definition. If the steps are different, then the process is different, also by definition.

Note that I stick with bacteria because it also prevents westprog from invoking the nonsensical "but that is related to humans" argument.

Now wait and see what will happen -- westprog is going to utterly ignore this. He is going to act like nobody even brought up the fact that bacteria control themselves, using behavior that we consider an algorithm, and it has nothing at all to do with humans, and it is clearly physical.

That doesn't prevent anyone else from seeing the truth of the matter, though.

 

[Complexity]

I know you want to ignore him, but it is more satisfying to actually show that he is wrong.

My mommy taught me not to play with my food.

Nom, nom, nom.

 

[Belz...]

I would have thought that motion was capable of being specified in terms of physical terms such as location and time

What about when your cursor moves across your computer monitor ? How can you describe its motion in physical terms ?

- as opposed to non-physical, anthropocentric subjective terms like "instruction".

Considering I input instructions into computers all the time, the bolded word seems poorly chosen.