• 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.
Criticize this:

A criteria for a conscious entity is that it may spontaneously conclude that it's internal subjective experience is due to something immaterial and uncomputable, magical, and/or immortal.

Say, we implement and Mr. Scott conscious computer, where it collects input, remembers lots of it, compares its memories with new input, and can include this process in its process. Now add anticipation -- comparing the past with the present to extrapolate the future. Now ask it to imagine it's own death (being switched off). It probably couldn't, since its process is all it knows about itself. It may find the non-existence of its process inconceivable, so it may conclude it's immortality, and that it would survive the physical denial of power to the machinery it's running on -- that it's mind was supernatural and immaterial.
 
westprog said:
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.
Click to expand...

Correct. DNA, like the brain, does not function in a vacuum. They both are meaningless out of context. The dogma of DNA or the brain "instructing" their environments by doing algorithms is pseudoscience.
The motive is certainly anthropomorphism as Leumas and Westprog have alluded to.
It is simply another variation of religion that has polluted modern culture.
 
!Kaggen said:
Correct. DNA, like the brain, does not function in a vacuum. They both are meaningless out of context. The dogma of DNA or the brain "instructing" their environments by doing algorithms is pseudoscience.The motive is certainly anthropomorphism as Leumas and Westprog have alluded to.
It is simply another variation of religion that has polluted modern culture.
Click to expand...



Excatly... :thumbsup:

I think Westprog's example about planets not doing calculus to figure out which way to move next time step despite their motion being describable by calculus equations is extremely succinct. It says everything I have been clumsily trying to say and more. I wish I thought of that :D
 
Last edited:
!Kaggen said:
Correct. DNA, like the brain, does not function in a vacuum. They both are meaningless out of context. The dogma of DNA or the brain "instructing" their environments by doing algorithms is pseudoscience.
The motive is certainly anthropomorphism as Leumas and Westprog have alluded to.
It is simply another variation of religion that has polluted modern culture.
Click to expand...
No.
 
westprog said:
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.
Click to expand...

In other words your "yes" is actually a "no".
 
!Kaggen said:
Correct. DNA, like the brain, does not function in a vacuum. They both are meaningless out of context. The dogma of DNA or the brain "instructing" their environments by doing algorithms is pseudoscience.
Click to expand...

How exactly is it pseudoscience ? I see a claim but nothing else.

What a surprise.....predictable religious response.
Click to expand...

Of course. Any disagreement from anyone MUST amount to a religion.

Doesn't that word mean anything, anymore ?
 
Leumas said:
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.
Click to expand...
I see where you're coming from. The list of words you suggest are 'quite loaded with intentionality and purposefulness and DESIGN' are the linguistic conveniences of an anthropocentric view. This is how we interpret the world, and we tend to see everything in terms of those abstractions, they are suited to our thought processes, the way we manipulate symbolic meaning.

'Instructions' describes the data that configure a general-purpose machine or processor to produce a particular output.

'Carrying out' describes the activity of that processor.

'Solving a problem' describes an anthropocentric interpretation of the processor activity, imputing a reason or a goal to explain it. This interpretation is our imposition: 'the amoeba solves the problem of obtaining energy by engulfing and digesting food particles' doesn't mean there is intentionality, purposefulness or design on the part of the amoeba.

The usual 'requirement' to terminate expresses the point that the activity coded by the algorithm usually does not continue indefinitely - at some point it completes and a different algorithm may be run. Termination is usually triggered by an event or events that are direct consequences of the activity in progress. 'Eat until sated', 'dig out burrow until entire body fits inside'. It is viewed as a 'requirement' because non-termination in these cases is generally damaging, i.e. a 'runaway' process.

As you say, they are not words associated with evolution; we have learned that although evolution looks as if it has purposes and goals, it doesn't; our intuition is misleading. But if we remove the anthropocentric semantics (as I have attempted above) we can see that there is a reasonable interpretation that does not involve purpose, intent, or design.

This is why I don't think 'algorithm' necessarily has the anthropcentric nuances that you feel it inevitably has. Also, I don't know of another word that so clearly encapsulates what we are trying to describe here.
 
Last edited:
Minoosh said:
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?
Click to expand...
The semantics are tricky. My view is that we have the feeling or sensation of intentionality, just as we have the feeling or sensation of free will. Our natural view of ourselves does seem inherently dualist, but under close examination the popular understanding of intentionality and free will becomes extremely vague and ill-defined. I suggest that they may be useful abstractions, artefacts of the simplifications necessary to handle social interaction, model behaviour and theory of mind, including the narrative of self.

Under a strictly materialistic theory of mind, how could we form an intention that was not dictated by circumstances beyond our direct control?
Click to expand...
It would appear we could not - but it's a puzzle - for example, exactly what is meant by 'our' in 'beyond our direct control', is it the brain as a whole, or just the conscious self that has so little awareness of activity in the rest of the brain? and what do we mean by 'direct control'? if all is cause and effect, at what point does this 'direct control' take effect?
 
punshhh said:
...snip...

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


...snip..
Click to expand...

You have been making claims that use the word "life" so why not just share the definition you are using? You have to have one else you would be saying your claims that used the word "life" were content free!

If you provide your definition we can then discuss whether your claims and conclusions follows your definition.
 
Belz... said:
How exactly is it pseudoscience ? I see a claim but nothing else.
Click to expand...

Natural selection applies to organisms not DNA nor brains. An organism being the smallest unit of a species which can reproduce and interact with its environment.
 
!Kaggen said:
Natural selection applies to organisms not DNA nor brains. An organism being the smallest unit of a species which can reproduce and interact with its environment.
Click to expand...
I don't quite see what that has to do with whether DNA is algorithmic.

If you feel that DNA is not algorithmic, what would you say to the DNA and Natural Algorithms Group - are they wasting their time?
 
Leumas said:
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?
Click to expand...


I could, but I'd rather you look into them on your own.

All of what I would say has already been written up coherently and accessibly by experts in the field. I don't feel the need to replicate their efforts.

I honestly think that you'd find doing so fascinating and thought-provoking. It will take some time, but I know that you are interested in the issues that genetic algorithms address and think that you'd find the time spent well worth it.

By the way, thank you for not taking my comments badly - I intended them to be constructive. I think you have a lot to offer in several areas. I do think that you've been off-track in this discussion and think that you'd really benefit from and enjoy learning about genetic algorithms.
 
westprog said:
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.
Click to expand...


No.
 
westprog said:
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.
Click to expand...


No. You certainly have not been reading the posts of others with any consideration or care.

Please do so.
 
!Kaggen said:
Correct. DNA, like the brain, does not function in a vacuum. They both are meaningless out of context. The dogma of DNA or the brain "instructing" their environments by doing algorithms is pseudoscience.
The motive is certainly anthropomorphism as Leumas and Westprog have alluded to.
It is simply another variation of religion that has polluted modern culture.
Click to expand...


Again, nonsense.

I urged Leumas to investigate genetic algorithms so that he might understand why his posts on these issues have been wrong.

I will not urge you to do the same.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom