Explain consciousness to the layman.

[punshhh]

What is the difference, and why do you believe there is a difference?

Observation of nature reveals consciousness as an emergent property of life forms. From the similarities of the nervous system to computers, it does not follow that computers mimicking that behavior are conscious

So are robots.

Is a robot alive, or does it mimic life? Does a robot know anything, or is it imitating the behavior of an animal which knows something?

If such an entity were constructed, then clearly, yes.

Non-sequitur.

 

[punshhh]

The 'quality of being' ?

Care to explain what that means (without tautology)?

The quality of being in relation to a life form is an individual entity.

A human being is a unique human, as distinct from any other human.

 

[punshhh]

We've had the capacity to exterminate ourselves for about 50 years now; that we haven't done so is a positive sign.

Good fortune, we may well accomplish it in the next 50 years. Unless of course the gods look kindly on us.

Touch wood.

 

[PixyMisa]

Exactly.

I think Westprog

.... blah blah blah ....

Return

None of which addresses the point in any way, but thanks for trying.

 

[PixyMisa]

Observation of nature reveals consciousness as an emergent property of life forms. From the similarities of the nervous system to computers, it does not follow that computers mimicking that behavior are conscious

Evidence?

Is a robot alive, or does it mimic life? Does a robot know anything, or is it imitating the behavior of an animal which knows something?

What is the difference, and why do you think there is a difference?

Non-sequitur.

Entirely wrong. Unless you can show why two functionally equivalent systems would have this fundamental difference, your position is irrational.

 

[PixyMisa]

Good fortune, we may well accomplish it in the next 50 years. Unless of course the gods look kindly on us.

Touch wood.

No, maybe, no, and no.

 

[Leumas]

None of which addresses the point in any way, but thanks for trying.

I'm sorry you could not follow it....... but thanks for trying.

 

[dlorde]

Planetary motion and gravity and so forth in the Cosmos can be DESCRIBED by calculus formulas and we can calculate the positions so as to be able to send a ship to rendezvous with where a body would be in the future.

Does that mean that the planets are following a PRESCRIBED path?

Do the planets perform calculus calculations to figure out how and when they have to move to where they are PRESCRIBED to be?

Nobody claimed that, that I'm aware of. As I understand it, the various approaches are all descriptive; the ultimate reality is unknowable, so we must find appropriate and useful descriptions of how things behave.

When people argue that DNA is algorithmic, they are arguing that an algorithmic description is a viable description of how it behaves - it has explanatory and predictive power.

When people say the brain is computational and algorithmic, they are saying that this is a viable description of how it behaves. They say this partly because it has been shown that the function of parts of the system - isolated neural networks - can be precisely described and modeled using computation and algorithms. Since it appears that the whole system is composed of an assembly of these networks, it seems reasonable to suppose that the whole system can be described in these terms. There are other influencing factors beyond the connectivity of the elements, but these influences on the system can also be treated computationally.

There may well be other ways of describing the system and other ways of modeling it; I'm not familiar with the alternatives, but the algorithmic, computational approach has a lot of explanatory power, and continues to produce useful explanations, results, and predictions.

 

[Leumas]

Nobody claimed that, that I'm aware of. As I understand it, the various approaches are all descriptive; the ultimate reality is unknowable, so we must find appropriate and useful descriptions of how things behave.

When people argue that DNA is algorithmic, they are arguing that an algorithmic description is a viable description of how it behaves - it has explanatory and predictive power.

When people say the brain is computational and algorithmic, they are saying that this is a viable description of how it behaves. They say this partly because it has been shown that the function of parts of the system - isolated neural networks - can be precisely described and modeled using computation and algorithms. Since it appears that the whole system is composed of an assembly of these networks, it seems reasonable to suppose that the whole system can be described in these terms. There are other influencing factors beyond the connectivity of the elements, but these influences on the system can also be treated computationally.

There may well be other ways of describing the system and other ways of modeling it; I'm not familiar with the alternatives, but the algorithmic, computational approach has a lot of explanatory power, and continues to produce useful explanations, results, and predictions.

I fully and utterly agree with all what you said....


I am just objecting to anyone who says that the brain IS an algorithm.

Like you said, the modeling we use to DESCRIBE the brain is very well served by the algorithmic paradigm and is the best system to do so.

However, the brain is no more algorithmic ITSELF than the physical circuit shown below which ALSO can be emulated using an algorithmic system..... but I doubt anyone would say that the circuit shown below IS AN algorithm..... the same applies to a brain CIRCUIT.

The function of a brain is best DESCRIBED by an algorithm..... but that does not mean that the brain IS an algorithm..... just like the circuit below can be described (and emulated) by an algorithm but is not one itself.

 

[dlorde]

My point initially was that living things (see definition below) have awareness of their environment and exhibit behavior in relation to this environment and distinguish their personal (cellular) identity from their environment.

Ambiguous use of 'awareness'. Simple response to environmental stimuli is not the same as conscious awareness. Even in humans, the majority of responses to the environment are autonomic and do not involve consciousness or conscious awareness.

These are qualities which define consciousness in highly evolved animals which are regarded as conscious and yet they were present in the earliest most primitive life forms which had cellular life.

Not exactly - see above.

The initial stages of consciousness where present before the development of brains which then proceeded to perform computation and result in the emergence of self consciousness which we see in humans.

Unsubstantiated. Or perhaps you're defining consciousness to suit your thesis. I'm not getting into amoebic consciousness again.

If someone where to simulate the activity of a brain without also simulating the entire biological body of a human, it would not be conscious as an animal is. It would merely be mimicking the behavior which a living human exhibits.

Unsubstantiated assertion. I'm still waiting for the reasoning behind your assertions.

I am happy to go with this as a definition for now.

Which, my minimal definition, which isn't restricted to biological life as we know it, or the exclusive biological-life-as-we-know-it definition?

If the latter, you're just asserting by definition again - life defined as biological life-as-we-know-it means anything else can't be alive; consciousness defined as an attribute unique to living things means only living things can be conscious; therefore anything other than biological life-as-we-know-it cannot be conscious - by definition. Without plausible reasons for those assertions/definitions, it is literally unreasonable.

Mimic a conscious process.

Do you think it would be possible to tell the difference if you weren't aware of the physical instantiation?

Your insistence on this sounds like someone claiming an electric car is only mimicking a car because it has an electric motor instead of an internal combustion engine - and when challenged, defining a car as a passenger vehicle with an internal combustion engine...

 

[dlorde]

I am just objecting to anyone who says that the brain IS an algorithm.

Huh? - where did anyone say that? (link, please).

 

[Leumas]

Huh - where did anyone say that? (link, please).

That is the impression I got from reading some of the posts.

I am not going to go back and read them all again to get a link.

If I am wrong then GOOD..... it just means I wasted all this time on a misunderstanding and we are in agreement after all.... I am glad.





ETA: Here are some
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7990461#post7990461
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7990950#post7990950
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7993053#post7993053
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7993250#post7993250

 

[dlorde]

Does a robot know anything, or is it imitating the behavior of an animal which knows something?

Does a bonobo know anything, or is it mimicking the behaviour of an animal which knows something?

Consider what it means to know something. Does a dictionary know the meaning of a word? does an encyclopedia know the capital of Peru? Does a calculator know how to calculate square roots?

If you don't know those things and they don't know those things, how come you can come to know the meaning of a word, or the capital of Peru, or the square root of 42, by using them?

What, exactly, do you mean by 'know' in the context you're using it?

 

[dlorde]

If I am wrong then GOOD..... it just means I wasted all this time on a misunderstanding and we are in agreement after all.... I am glad.

OMG! are we making progress?

Or perhaps just agreeing on where to start...

 

[Leumas]

OMG! are we making progress?

Or perhaps just agreeing on where to start...

Both... I think

 

[yy2bggggs]

Observation of nature reveals consciousness as an emergent property of life forms. From the similarities of the nervous system to computers, it does not follow that computers mimicking that behavior are conscious

Observation of nature reveals flight as an emergent property of life forms. From the similarities of wings to mechanical contraptions, it does not follow that a machine mimicking that behavior is flying.

Is a robot alive, or does it mimic life? Does a robot know anything, or is it imitating the behavior of an animal which knows something?

Who are you asking, yourself?

You're claiming that you are basing your assertion on an observation. But if you observe an android acting the same way as you observe I act, and as a result you conclude the android is not conscious but I am, then on what basis can you claim it is an observation that I am conscious and the android is not? It appears that the only thing you're observing is your own prejudices.

Non-sequitur.

Please learn the meaning of this term.

 

[dlorde]

A living conscious animal is an entity with the quality of being.

The quality of being in relation to a life form is an individual entity.

A human being is a unique human, as distinct from any other human.

OK; so the difference between Lieutenant Commander Data and a living conscious animal, is that a living, conscious animal is an entity with 'the quality of being', where the 'quality of being' means being an individual entity (unique and distinct from any other of its kind).

So, in short, a living conscious animal is an individual entity, unique and distinct from others of its kind [but Lieutenant Commander Data is not].

My computer is a unique and distinct individual entity, different from others of its kind - it has a unique and distinct physical configuration of parts and software, and more importantly, a unique and distinct accumulation of stored data, much of it carried over from previous computers, that has been tweaked and refined over the years.

Does this mean my computer is a living, conscious animal? I don't think so - I don't think it is an animal, or alive, or conscious.

So now maybe you could explain how the concept of a 'unique and distinct individual entity' is a useful way to discriminate between Lieutenant Commander Data (or my computer), and living, conscious animals?

 

[Belz...]

When the terms of a question aren't appropriate, then the answers won't be consistent.

So now you're claiming that your own inconsistence is based on an inappropriate question by me ? It's MY fault that you couldn't be rational ?

I do. However, they don't produce any specific physical effects.

And if I were to demonstrate that they do produce specific physical effects, would you again move the goalposts to fat specific physical effects ?

If, nevertheless, consciousness is associated with computation, then it cannot be a physical effect.

Everything is a physical effect, so this statement is puzzling, unless you are a dualist.

 

[Belz...]

I did and you are wrong.

Oh, would you two please start actually arguing rather than bicker ?

 

[tsig]

Nobody claimed that, that I'm aware of. As I understand it, the various approaches are all descriptive; the ultimate reality is unknowable, so we must find appropriate and useful descriptions of how things behave.

When people argue that DNA is algorithmic, they are arguing that an algorithmic description is a viable description of how it behaves - it has explanatory and predictive power.

When people say the brain is computational and algorithmic, they are saying that this is a viable description of how it behaves. They say this partly because it has been shown that the function of parts of the system - isolated neural networks - can be precisely described and modeled using computation and algorithms. Since it appears that the whole system is composed of an assembly of these networks, it seems reasonable to suppose that the whole system can be described in these terms. There are other influencing factors beyond the connectivity of the elements, but these influences on the system can also be treated computationally.

There may well be other ways of describing the system and other ways of modeling it; I'm not familiar with the alternatives, but the algorithmic, computational approach has a lot of explanatory power, and continues to produce useful explanations, results, and predictions.

Why do you think there is an ultimate reality? I think reality is just reality, without any adjectives.