Explain consciousness to the layman.

[Belz...]

I don't know what more you want. You insisted that a non-physical definition of motion is possible.

No, that's not what I said. You read my post too quickly, again. Please read it properly.

I accepted that, but I don't see what help it is for your position. The physical definition of motion still exists, in a way that a physical definition of an algorithm does not.

What about the cursor ?

And we can express any physical process in terms of instructions, in that case.

No, we can't. Once more, you misunderstand the definition of the word used. It's no wonder you're confused.

 

[Belz...]

I didn't say that the cursor can be described in physical terms.

Ok but you said it's motion can be described in physical terms. If the cursor can't, how can its motion ?

There is always human agency and intentionality involved in any computer system. That is where the algorithms come from.

How about DNA ?

 

[dlorde]

There is always human agency and intentionality involved in any computer system. That is where the algorithms come from.

What about that poor old wasp, caught in a behavioural loop by an inflexible contextual algorithm ?

 

[Darat]

Then I'm happy to clarify my thinking.

Look forward to you doing so.

 

[Darat]

First, nonsense, and second, where do you think human agency and intentionality come from?

Magic of course!

 

[dlorde]

In other words in an Analog system there was no COMPUTING going on… there were no procedures and steps. Things worked in response to levels of voltages and currents. Everything worked together for an overall effect. There is no CENTRAL processing system.

I don't think that's a significant distinction in this context - computers and algorithms don't have to be digital and discrete in operation. The first computers were analogue systems, using cams or fluids, e.g. gun aiming systems for battleships or the MONIAC (Philips Machine) that used water flows to model the economy.

 

[Complexity]

Animals do NOT have any inbuilt algorithms..... algorithms SIMULATE what animals do.... but animal behavior is not due to any algorithms. It is due to perceptions, actuations, reactions, and feedback with memory.

I don't agree.

Consider the behavior of a ribosome as it synthesizes proteins.

Algorithmic behavior occurs in a great many aspects of living systems.

 

[Complexity]

In other words in an Analog system there was no COMPUTING going on… there were no procedures and steps. Things worked in response to levels of voltages and currents. Everything worked together for an overall effect. There is no CENTRAL processing system.

I don't agree.

Analog computing is simply another form of computing.

 

[punshhh]

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?

Contradictory?

Computation in a living brain = consciousness,
Computation in an inanimate machine = no consciousness.

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

Cellular life is the basis of every form of life except a few primitive examples.

Perhaps you will now provide a definition? and then we can agree on a definition and proceed to examine this issue.

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.

See above.

Are you of the opinion that consciousness will result from running a suitable algorithm in an inanimate machine?

 

[yy2bggggs]

Computation in a living brain = consciousness,
Computation in an inanimate machine = no consciousness.

Why?

See above.

Why?

Are you of the opinion that consciousness will result from running a suitable algorithm in an inanimate machine?

Wrong challenge. You are shifting the burden of proof. What thing could you possibly have learned that allowed you to reach this conclusion?

 

[Wowbagger]

Are you of the opinion that consciousness will result from running a suitable algorithm in an inanimate machine?

The material that makes up our own brain wasn't always 'animate', you know.

If a "suitable algorithm" is running on a machine, who's to say the machine is still "inanimate"?

It's life, Jim, but not as we know it!

 

[punshhh]

The material that makes up our own brain wasn't always 'animate', you know.

If a "suitable algorithm" is running on a machine, who's to say the machine is still "inanimate"?

It's life, Jim, but not as we know it!

Yes I agree, if the machine is alive, it may be conscious.

I wonder, do you think Data from Star treck is likely to be conscious?

 

[punshhh]

Why?

An observation of consciousness which can be observed in nature. It is a property of living entities.

Wrong challenge. You are shifting the burden of proof. What thing could you possibly have learned that allowed you to reach this conclusion?

I regard the burden of proof to lie with those who claim that consciousness is understood. It's not being understood is the default position.

 

[Belz...]

An observation of consciousness which can be observed in nature. It is a property of living entities.

Argument from ignorance.

"Flying" was also a property of living entities.

 

[yy2bggggs]

An observation of consciousness which can be observed in nature. It is a property of living entities.

You're begging the question.

You're using the words "observation" and "observed" in a sentence. That is not what I asked for; my question is not to form a sentence using the word "observation".

My question is, what have you observed that leads you to this conclusion?

Consider this. I have hair. I'm conscious. My brother, who is also conscious, has hair. Based on this observation, I conclude that consciousness requires hair. Someone who acts conscious but does not have hair cannot be conscious, because, as I just said, consciousness requires hair. Based on my observations, of course.

I regard the burden of proof to lie with those who claim that consciousness is understood.

With regard to this claim, that's you bud. So, chop chop. Show me your proof.

 

[rocketdodger]

And we can express any physical process in terms of instructions, in that case. The problem is exactly the same as with algorithms - the definition is either too wide, or too narrow.

This is only a problem for people seeking to take solace in the idea that the human mind is somehow fundamentally magically specially different from all the other particles in the universe.

If you don't accept that premise, nobody cares that a rock sitting in a field can also be expressed in terms of instructions. Nobody. Cares. Because. A. Rock. Is. Still. A. Rock.

 

[tsig]

This is only a problem for people seeking to take solace in the idea that the human mind is somehow fundamentally magically specially different from all the other particles in the universe.

.

That's the crux of the problem, just as some don't want to be 'just animals' there's those that object to humans being 'just matter'.

 

[Wowbagger]

I wonder, do you think Data from Star treck is likely to be conscious?

At the very least, he's a P-zombie. But, there are those, such as Dennett, who think we humans are not anything more than P-zombies, as well.

I don't think it's unreasonable to say that Data is likely to be conscious.

 

[tsig]

At the very least, he's a P-zombie. But, there are those, such as Dennett, who think we humans are not anything more than P-zombies, as well.

I don't think it's unreasonable to say that Data is likely to be conscious.

But if Data stepped into a transfer booth and somehow the original was preserved, would he off himself.

 

[westprog]

No, that's not what I said. You read my post too quickly, again. Please read it properly.

I still don't see what your point is, or how it relates to a physical definition for "algorithm". I'd like to see what your actual argument is.

What about the cursor ?

What about it? We can define apparent motion in terms of how something appears to move, even if nothing does. That is a subjective, people-oriented view of motion. Or we can produce a physical definition which doesn't apply to the movement of a cursor, or a laser beam tracking across the face of the moon, or viewing a rainbow from a moving car - but which deals with the location of physical objects in different positions at different times.

You seem to think that the fact that there can be a non-physical definition of motion seems to mean that there is no need for a physical definition of executing an algorithm. In fact, your argument (though I'm inferring what it is, because so far it's implied, not explicit) regarding a physical definition of motion if anything supports my position. Apparent motion cannot produce physical effects. You can't move physical objects* by tracking a dot from a laser pointer across the floor.

No, we can't. Once more, you misunderstand the definition of the word used. It's no wonder you're confused.

If definitions aren't provided, what am I supposed to do? A physical definition of the execution of an algorithm would refer to physical quantities. If a word like "instruction" is used without any kind of precise definition, then it's hardly my fault if I have to guess at exactly what it means.

*except cats