Explain consciousness to the layman.

[dlorde]

So if you want to define algorithms in a more general way to include animal behavior then fine....but the standard understood definition implies a DESIGNER for the procedure....it implies INTENTIONS and PURPOSE for the process.

The general definition I've been going by is, roughly, 'a specific set of instructions for carrying out a procedure or solving a problem, usually with the requirement that the procedure terminate at some point'. There's no requirement for or implication of a designer.

Purpose or intent is somewhat opaque - do the wasp's activities have intent or purpose, or do we impute intent or purpose because the activities achieve goals? i.e. are evolutionary traits and behaviours purposeful of themselves, or do we anthropmorphise them as purposeful?

 

[dlorde]

How are you ever going to explain to people that DNA contains much data that can be usefully interpreted as to when and how to make proteins without anyone having put that information there if you take this stance?

Quite; where is the intent and purpose behind the ribosome?

 

[PixyMisa]

The intentionality in computer programs comes from the person who put them there. Computers executing programs have no intentionality, any more than any other physical event.

Attributing human characteristics to inanimate objects is something common to children and primitive peoples. Asserting that a computer program "wants" to calculate a list of prime numbers, or is "confused" by incorrectly formatted data is like the belief that Zeus throws down the thunderbolt or that Teddy likes to be hugged.

Claims that humans get intentionality from computer programs are exactly backwards.

None of which answers, addresses, or even approaches the question. Where is it that you think humans get intentionality from, Westprog?

That's a very different form of computing to the kind described by the Turing Machine model.

Could you expand on that theorem, please, because it is so far undiscovered by mathematics.

 

[Belz...]

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.

It's about cursors. Like what we're talking about, here:

What about it? We can define apparent motion in terms of how something appears to move, even if nothing does.

So we can define the apparent motion of something that doesn't exist, and that's physical, but we can't define the apparent action of something we know exists (consciousness) ?

What ARE you saying, anyway ?

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.

You seem to be incapable of following a conversation. YOU are the one who is saying there is no physical terms to define consciousness. I'm giving you counter examples.

 

[Belz...]

How about any chemical process? Or any physical process at all?

When you get right down to it, you can dumb down any concept.

But do you agree that DNA contains what can be interpreted as a series of instructions for the production of proteins by cell organs ?

 

[Belz...]

A falling rock breaking is an example of an algorithm. Anyone have a problem with that?

Me, actually. If we define "algorithm" to mean everything, it becomes a useless term.

 

[Leumas]

The general definition I've been going by is, roughly, 'a specific set of instructions for carrying out a procedure or solving a problem, usually with the requirement that the procedure terminate at some point'. There's no requirement for or implication of a designer.

Purpose or intent is somewhat opaque - do the wasp's activities have intent or purpose, or do we impute intent or purpose because the activities achieve goals? i.e. are evolutionary traits and behaviours purposeful of themselves, or do we anthropmorphise them as purposeful?

Well let’s have a look

'a specific set of instructions for carrying out a procedure or solving a problem, usually with the requirement that the procedure terminate at some point'​

I think you will find that these words

• instructions
• carrying out
• solving a problem
• requirement

Are quite loaded with intentionality and purposefulness and DESIGN.... no?

But specifically

• solving a problem
• requirement

Are not words to be associated with EVOLUTION. Since the brain is the result of evolution then there were no requirements and no solving in any way.

But due to linguistic shortcomings we may have to describe the whole thing in terms we can understand like we sometimes anthropomorphize evolution and talk about it as if it has purpose and so forth, just so that we can easily comprehend the SYNTAX of the concepts.

So we can SAY that a brain behaves LIKE an algorithm or that we can SIMULATE its actions with an algorithmic procedure.....just like we say LAWS of nature when we mean the concepts that describe what the natural interactions are.

Don't get me wrong.... I am not in opposition to the ALGORITHM concept at all. I am just worried that by using the word we may be laying a trap that is similar to the misunderstanding that arises about the words THEORY and LAWS when they are used in the context of this general topic of philosophy.

I am just saying that “algorithm” has a PRESCRIPTION aspect to it while what we want is to DESCRIBE the brain’s actions. We may want to find a different word that is not loaded with misconstruable nuances.

 

[PixyMisa]

Well let’s have a look

'a specific set of instructions for carrying out a procedure or solving a problem, usually with the requirement that the procedure terminate at some point'​

I think you will find that these words

• instructions
• carrying out
• solving a problem
• requirement

Are quite loaded with intentionality and purposefulness and DESIGN.... no?

No.

 

[Complexity]

I am just saying that “algorithm” has a PRESCRIPTION aspect to it while what we want is to DESCRIBE the brain’s actions. We may want to find a different word that is not loaded with misconstruable nuances.

Have you ever heard of the field of genetic algorithms?

I think that you'll find that it undermines what you have been saying.

 

[Leumas]

Have you ever heard of the field of genetic algorithms?

I think that you'll find that it undermines what you have been saying.

Is Evolution an algorithm?

A genetic algorithm (GA) is a search heuristic that mimics the process of natural evolution. This heuristic is routinely used to generate useful solutions to optimization and search problems. Genetic algorithms belong to the larger class of evolutionary algorithms (EA), which generate solutions to optimization problems using techniques inspired by natural evolution, such as inheritance, mutation, selection, and crossover.

We have algorithms that MIMIC the climate to help generate meteorological prognoses..... is the weather or the climate an algorithm?

We have algorithms that help analyze the economy… does that mean that the market is an algorithm?

So we can SAY that a brain behaves LIKE an algorithm or that we can SIMULATE its actions with an algorithmic procedure.....just like we say LAWS of nature when we mean the concepts that describe what the natural interactions are.

 

[Minoosh]

Where is it that you think humans get intentionality from ?

Sorry, this wasn't addressed to me but this question is at the heart of the matter - intentionality is correlated with a biological process, but which comes first? If intentionality, and by implication a specific intention can only arise out of biochemical processes over which we have no conscious control then is there no such thing as free will? Under a strictly materialistic theory of mind, how could we form an intention that was not dictated by circumstances beyond our direct control?

 

[Complexity]

Is Evolution an algorithm?

Your response indicates that you don't understand what genetic algorithms are or how they relate to evolutionary processes.

I suggest that you read up on them before continuing with this discussion - it may help you to avoid making some errors.

Several of your posts in this area have contained ideas that are off and you are asking the wrong questions. You are capable of better than this. Seriously.

 

[Leumas]

Your response indicates that you don't understand what genetic algorithms are or how they relate to evolutionary processes.

I suggest that you read up on them before continuing with this discussion - it may help you to avoid making some errors.

Several of your posts in this area have contained ideas that are off and you are asking the wrong questions. You are capable of better than this. Seriously.

I have never studied anything about genetic algorithms. I heard of them. Never bothered to research them. But I did read the Wiki entries on them.

So can you please elaborate and explain how they undermine what I was saying?

 

[westprog]

Me, actually. If we define "algorithm" to mean everything, it becomes a useless term.

I think the problem is in thinking of an algorithm as something that is happening in a process. If we think of it as a useful way of designing, or analysing a process, then the issue doesn't even arise. It's only when we consider an algorithm as something that is a property that we have to consider whether it's happening or not. IMO, the only question is whether it's a useful tool.

 

[westprog]

When you get right down to it, you can dumb down any concept.

But do you agree that DNA contains what can be interpreted as a series of instructions for the production of proteins by cell organs ?

Yes, I think that's valid. If we can describe a process in an algorithmic way, then that is what the concept of an algorithm is for. That doesn't mean that DNA is "doing algorithms" any more that the motion of the planets is doing calculus, or stones on a beach are doing arithmetic.

 

[Leumas]

Sorry, this wasn't addressed to me but this question is at the heart of the matter - intentionality is correlated with a biological process, but which comes first? If intentionality, and by implication a specific intention can only arise out of biochemical processes over which we have no conscious control then is there no such thing as free will? Under a strictly materialistic theory of mind, how could we form an intention that was not dictated by circumstances beyond our direct control?

This 6 episodes documentary from the BBC might be quite interesting. It is quite informative and very thought provoking. Episode three seems to be missing from that particular youtube channel. I found it fragmented in five 10 minutes parts here.

Also the 4 parts video about psychopaths is quite revealing when it comes to the last question you ask. This video is REALLY interesting and thought provoking too. I made a few comments about it in this post.



This is Episodes 1..... the same channel gives episodes 2,4,5, and 6. When you are watching it through Youtube not here then the video will go to the next episode once it finishes



This is part 1 of 5 parts of Episode 3.... when you are watching it through Youtube not here then the video will go to the next part once it finishes




This is part 1 of 4 parts .... when you are watching it through Youtube not here then the video will go to the next part once it finishes

 

[Leumas]

Yes, I think that's valid. If we can describe a process in an algorithmic way, then that is what the concept of an algorithm is for. That doesn't mean that DNA is "doing algorithms" any more than the motion of the planets is doing calculus, or stones on a beach are doing arithmetic.

Exactly....

 

[Leumas]

Sorry, this wasn't addressed to me but this question is at the heart of the matter - intentionality is correlated with a biological process, but which comes first? If intentionality, and by implication a specific intention can only arise out of biochemical processes over which we have no conscious control then is there no such thing as free will? Under a strictly materialistic theory of mind, how could we form an intention that was not dictated by circumstances beyond our direct control?

I recently discovered this video which is not really a video. It is Daniel Dennett reading his own book Kinds Of Minds: Toward An Understanding Of Consciousness. It is not a reading of the whole book, but it is quite good.

I could not locate Chapters 3 and 5... maybe they were never made but they are very interesting chapters nevertheless.

The book is extremely entertaining and informative. I read the book a million years ago so it was really nice to hear the audio to refresh it in my mind especially that it is read by Dennett who has a very nice voice and his reading style is excellent.

The book has quite a bearing on the OP…. though I am not sure how much the layman may be able to appreciate it.

Here is Chapter 1


This is Chapter 2


This is Chapter 4


This is Chapter 6

 

[PixyMisa]

Sorry, this wasn't addressed to me but this question is at the heart of the matter - intentionality is correlated with a biological process, but which comes first? If intentionality, and by implication a specific intention can only arise out of biochemical processes over which we have no conscious control then is there no such thing as free will? Under a strictly materialistic theory of mind, how could we form an intention that was not dictated by circumstances beyond our direct control?

We can't.

And indeed, when you look at it closely, the question doesn't make sense: We are biological machines run by biological computers; our thoughts and decisions are just more biology.

 

[!Kaggen]

Your response indicates that you don't understand what genetic algorithms are or how they relate to evolutionary processes.

I suggest that you read up on them before continuing with this discussion - it may help you to avoid making some errors.

Several of your posts in this area have contained ideas that are off and you are asking the wrong questions. You are capable of better than this. Seriously.

Nonsense, Leumas is correct and you are wrong. You might know something about computers but your knowledge of biology is lacking.