• 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.
I'm not usually this thorough, but it's cold & snowy outside, and I've got time on my hands :)

Leumas said:
ETA: Here are some
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7990461#post7990461
Click to expand...
That simply asks for a distinction between stuff you mention in your previous post.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7990950#post7990950
Click to expand...
That maintains that living systems exhibit algorithmic behaviour - as we agreed; i.e. algorithms are a viable description of their behaviour.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7993053#post7993053
Click to expand...
This simply denies the words you listed are 'quite loaded with intentionality and purposefulness and DESIGN' - I later explained why they were not, and you agreed with my explanation, using the word 'Exactly'.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7993250#post7993250
Click to expand...
This one says you don't seem to understand what genetic algorithms are or how they relate to evolutionary processes, and recommends you read up on them. You immediately agreed you know nothing about genetic algorithms, and asked for more information.

None of these seem to relate to anyone saying the brain is an algorithm.
 
dlorde said:
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.
Click to expand...

It is being claimed that by "doing computations", the brain exhibits consciousness. That's very similar to claiming that the planets are "doing calculus" and hence might experience some side-effect from this.

It's certainly true that some behaviour of the planets might be mimicked by other systems where the same mathematical properties apply. The path of a charged particle in a magnetic field might well be analogous to the path of a comet in a gravitational field. However, to predict this, we need to be aware of what physical principles are involved, and how the same relationship might hold between physical principles. If we don't have a precise understanding of how the mathematical model applies, we can't make any predictions about other systems.

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.
Click to expand...

Yes, and as far as it goes, that's entirely valid. It's the claim that other systems which can be described in the same terms will necessarily exhibit a particular property.

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.
Click to expand...

I've already shown ways in which the Turing model for the behaviour of the brain does not encompass all its functionality. The Turing model is sufficient for computation and calculation, but it doesn't encompass monitoring and control.

However, this is just a detail. It's been claimed that all the behaviour of the brain can be modelled as a computation. This is trivially false. There are no systems which can be completely predicted by any mathematical model. Certainly the brain cannot. It is a highly complex physical system. Even if the Turing model were applicable to its operation, that model could never model everything the brain does.
 
Belz... said:
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 ?
Click to expand...

It's not your fault that I failed to point out your mistake. But I never claimed to be perfect.

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

Who knows what I might do? Or what you might do? For some reason, this topic is full of hypothetical "what if you met a talking robot" type questions. If you can demonstrate specific physical effects associated with computation, then by all means do so. If I then attempt to wriggle out of it, then you will no doubt point it out. Claims as to what I might do are less persuasive.

I have given objections to the computational theory of consciousness - in particular, the idea that one could run a computer program, at any speed, and precisely the same subjective experience would result. The objections I've given have been pretty much the same over numerous discussions, and AFAIAA, they've never been addressed.

The same "rebuttals" are regularly repeated. At the start of this thread, I listed some of them before they came up. The shifting goalposts claim is regularly made, even though my arguments remain the same.

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

A mathematical model is not a physical effect.
 
tsig said:
Why do you think there is an ultimate reality? I think reality is just reality, without any adjectives.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I should have put it in scare quotes... I just meant our knowledge of reality is always limited and provisional.
 
!Kaggen said:
I would urge you to study biology then you might understand why genetics is only one aspect of biology and a highly overrated one at that.
Click to expand...

The suggestion that genetics is a "highly overrated" aspect of biology is perhaps the stupidest statement made in this thread thus far.
 
I still don't see why a rock sitting in a field can't be algorithmic while a bee doing its dance can.

Can someone please explain, using actual logic and reason ?
 
westprog said:
The Turing model is sufficient for computation and calculation, but it doesn't encompass monitoring and control.
Click to expand...
A Turing equivalent machine (e.g. a real world computer) can be used for monitoring and control - they can be hooked up to (multiple) data inputs and outputs. Many are used in precisely those roles.

There are no systems which can be completely predicted by any mathematical model.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that's a necessary requirement - no two organisms are the same; evolution itself results in 'good enough' solutions.

Certainly the brain cannot. It is a highly complex physical system. Even if the Turing model were applicable to its operation, that model could never model everything the brain does.
Click to expand...
If Turing equivalent model were applicable to its operation (i.e. everything it does), why would it not be able model everything it does (i.e. its operation)? The former seems to imply the latter.

I don't see why being a highly complex physical system is necessarily a barrier. Turing equivalent processing can be arbitrarily complex, parallel, and even non-deterministic. If the physical system functions by the interaction of many elements (e.g. neurons) and the relevant functions of those elements and their interactions may be modeled in a computational way (which appears to be the case), why should an arbitrarily complex network of such elements not also be modeled in a computational way?
 
It seems that some people believe that if an entity seems conscious then it is conscious.

eg Star Trek's Data. If you hang out with him for a week and he says and does nothing that suggests he's not conscious, does that prove he's conscious? How do we judge it, anyway?

This is the same issue the Turing Test and P-Zombie attempt to address.

Anything can appear to be conscious to us, in part because of our flawed and hyperactive agency detection.

If someone claimed some new computer was conscious, how would we verify their claim?
 
dlorde said:
A Turing equivalent machine (e.g. a real world computer) can be used for monitoring and control - they can be hooked up to (multiple) data inputs and outputs. Many are used in precisely those roles.
Click to expand...


There's no such thing as a "Turing equivalent machine". In order to work at all, the machine must have some kind of timing ability. This is not part of the Turing model - it's something that's necessary to make something that implements the Turing model.

There are programs which run on computers according to the Turing model - and it's possible to reason about such programs us the theories that derive from the Turing model. It's not possible to reason about or predict the behaviour of systems that are asynchronous and non-deterministic using a synchronous, deterministic model.

It's possible to model or emulate such non-deterministic, asynchronous systems by incorporating the external elements into the model. For example, it's possible to have a simulation of a water processing plant, where the behaviour of the water level, valves, pumps etc is simulated. However, such a simulation is not equivalent to the control system, and cannot be substituted for it.

I'm not sure that's a necessary requirement - no two organisms are the same; evolution itself results in 'good enough' solutions.


If Turing equivalent model were applicable to its operation (i.e. everything it does), why would it not be able model everything it does (i.e. its operation)? The former seems to imply the latter.

I don't see why being a highly complex physical system is necessarily a barrier. Turing equivalent processing can be arbitrarily complex, parallel, and even non-deterministic.
Click to expand...

Turing-equivalent processing is always, by definition, deterministic.

If the physical system functions by the interaction of many elements (e.g. neurons) and the relevant functions of those elements and their interactions may be modeled in a computational way (which appears to be the case), why should an arbitrarily complex network of such elements not also be modeled in a computational way?
Click to expand...
 
Mr. Scott said:
Anything can appear to be conscious to us, in part because of our flawed and hyperactive agency detection.

If someone claimed some new computer was conscious, how would we verify their claim?
Click to expand...

People think that the characters on their TV screens are conscious, sometimes. The subjective impressions of human beings wouldn't be accepted as definitive evidence in any other area.

Unfortunately, the subjective impressions of human beings remain the best test available. If there's an objective test, I'm not aware of it.
 
!Kaggen said:
You think genetics is not covered in these fields? Now that's stupid!!
Click to expand...

Oh, I don't doubt that it is covered.

I just think that, for instance, learning about pea pod and fruit fly eye color probably doesn't give you the full story.

If you had the full story you would know that all of biology is merely an extension of genetics, by definition, since nucleic acids are the absolute core of biology -- both literally and figuratively. Life began with nucleic acids, it wasn't a chick-or-egg scenario, and every single function of the cell is implicitly linked with nucleic acid. Thats kind of how biology works.

You seem to think "genetics" is limited to Mendelian genetics, but that has been an obsolete view for 50 years.
 
PixyMisa said:
We were selected for hunting mammoths. We're very good at that. (Hence the lack of large wild animals in most of the world.) We've had the capacity to exterminate ourselves for about 50 years now; that we haven't done so is a positive sign.
Click to expand...

Hunting mammoths strikes me to some extent as sport, which doesn't prove anything as sport could be an expression of instinct. Yet sport is an application of our superior problem-solving ability. In the case of mammoth hunting I'm convinced there was a value beyond short-term material needs. "How can we beat this sucker, just for kicks" may have come into play. We apparently have a problem-solving instinct, across a broad range of problems. (Necessary for us naked apes so lacking in tooth, claw and fur).

Just a few thousand years ago we devised systems for handing off knowledge to subsequent generations - and not just those who live contemporaneously with us. Whatever fueled the explosion in human ingenuity, it sets us apart from other animals. We radically changed the terms of survival in a very brief period of time - relatively recent innovations like writing and agriculture seem to outpace biological evolution so significantly that they sure look like a qualitative leap in consciousness.

Leumas said:
Watch this video about a Lioness who adopts a baby antelope ...
Click to expand...

Thanks for those videos. Sapphic simian sex, whew! Lions lying with lambs - or calves - strikes me as a case of competing instincts which accounts for some human behavior as well. All of it, I'm not so sure.
 
westprog said:
It's not your fault that I failed to point out your mistake.
Click to expand...

:p

Who knows what I might do? Or what you might do? For some reason, this topic is full of hypothetical "what if you met a talking robot" type questions. If you can demonstrate specific physical effects associated with computation, then by all means do so. If I then attempt to wriggle out of it, then you will no doubt point it out. Claims as to what I might do are less persuasive.
Click to expand...

Granted. But please stop adding conditions to satisfy your demands.

The same "rebuttals" are regularly repeated. At the start of this thread, I listed some of them before they came up. The shifting goalposts claim is regularly made, even though my arguments remain the same.
Click to expand...

Arguments from incredulity, from where I stand.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom