Explain consciousness to the layman.

[PixyMisa]

The entity in question is not a chemical reaction, it is not a chemical process even though that process is an integral part of its being a living organism. It is a life form exhibiting emergent properties of a living being.

So it is a chemical reaction.

This is all well documented by science and I don't dispute it. Simply because it has been observed that the nervous system operates by the use of electro-chemical behavior, materialists have presumed that such emergent properties would also emerge from computers.

No.

I suggest you take a sober look at the debating behavior of the Skeptics on this site. It is riddled with lazy thinking, obsfucation and diversionary "debunking" behavior.

No, punshhh, that's a mirror.

 

[Mr. Scott]

wtf are you talking about? I never accused you of anything. I happen to like you in fact.

I suppose I overreacted*. Sorry.

Perhaps this internal subjective experience of consciousness we find so mysterious was an accidental emergent property of the data processing we developed to survive and compete. What other explanation makes sense?

*Sometimes it seems no one likes me here. People are so quick to be nasty, and almost never nice.

 

[Leumas]

Perhaps this internal subjective experience of consciousness we find so mysterious was an accidental emergent property of the data processing we developed to survive and compete. What other explanation makes sense?

*Sometimes it seems no one likes me here. People are so quick to be nasty, and almost never nice.

I CERTAINLY like you.... and your definition above even more so.... I also applauded another post of yours for another good definition.

 

[Leumas]

Something REALLY FUNNY happened to me just now that I think is IRONICALLY related to this OP.

I was trying to locate older posts of mine. You can do this easily by clicking on the user name just above the avatar (of any member). That drops down a menu of actions. One of these actions is to locate more posts by the member.

Another option right under that is "Add member to your ignore list"


I accidentally clicked on that..... here is the message I got from the JREF forum

We can't help you ignore yourself.

 

[punshhh]

So it is a chemical reaction.

Yes at no time have I stated otherwise. Just like there is a chemical formula for Beethoven's 5th symphony.

However each time its performed the formula is different. suggesting one is not a direct correlation of the other.

No.

Then what are you saying if you are not making this assumption?

No, punshhh, that's a mirror.

If I have used such methods it is because I have reluctantly adopted the parlance of this forum. I don't accuse you of such behavior, you are to the point and honest.

We all squirm a bit when squeezed do we not?

 

[Leumas]

• Consciousness is undefined
• Even though consciousness is undefined, we are still able to discuss it
• Subjective experience is an essential element of consciousness, and any model of consciousness that doesn't encompass subjective experience is incomplete
• There is a prevailing theory that consciousness can be created by a computational process, which works according to the Turing Machine model
• According to this model of computation, there is a process which could be carried out on any form of computing equipment which would give an identical subjective experience to being a human being
• I consider this theory of computation unproven
• I also consider that the Turing model of computation does not reflect the way that the brain in fact works, in particular in its role in external interaction
• I regard the definitions of computation commonly used as not being part of a physical theory - i.e. a theory which is part of the science of physics
• If computation is not presented as a physical theory, it therefore follows that consciousness, if created by computation, is also not a physical quantity.
• I believe that it is at least possible that consciousness is created by particular physical activities in the brain, though it is not possible at present to determine what those physical activities might be.
• I am not prepared, in the absence of any reliable theory, to rule anything in or out related to this topic, except where it is self-contradictory.

If any of this isn't clear, then I'd be happy to expand on it. I'm not going to discuss it on the basis that the above isn't what I really think, or what my hidden agenda or beliefs are, or that particular words might have an alternative meaning that at a stretch could be interpreted to mean something else.

THANKS Westprog.....



By the way… I am preparing a post in response to my plea in this post…. I want to make it as nicely detailed as you have done so I am taking a bit longer time. But Mr. Scott and Beelzebuddy said it quite effectively and succinctly.

The thread question has pretty much been answered, at least to my satisfaction. "Consciousness is whatever the brain does." Everything else has been an argument that there is a gap to fit a god into.

Perhaps this internal subjective experience of consciousness we find so mysterious was an accidental emergent property of the data processing we developed to survive and compete. What other explanation makes sense?

 

[punshhh]

ASSUMING consciousness is an uncomputable, mystical, immaterial phenomenon, why did it evolve?

Well here is one I am qualified to answer.

I will give a brief answer trying not to use much mystical language. There are other answers and a whole philosophy or three behind them.

To the mystic the purpose of consciousness is to develop entities with the ability to care for/nurture/do the house keeping in the manifest realms of existence.

Such entities are cared for by more evolved entities in turn and humanity is in a kindergarten of emerging consciousness, namely earth.


Another way of putting it is that for existence to work and be worth doing all the actors, prop's and sets have to be assembled choreographed, orchestrated and turn up on the opening night. The play is itself existence, perhaps an analogy would be the big bang event is when the curtain raises and the subject of the play, the plot, is the realm of existence being acted out in that universe.

What survival advantage did it endow us with?

Well from the mystical perspective it is essential for the development of life forms which can step out of their evolutionary niche and begin to nurture or garden the wider world in which they evolved.

We are beginning to do this now, it is a messy process with many risks involved but touch wood we will pull through without wiping ourselves out with ecological collapse or nuclear weapons. Once we have secured our survival then the real work can begin, but thats some way off.

 

[punshhh]

Something REALLY FUNNY happened to me just now that I think is IRONICALLY related to this OP.

I was trying to locate older posts of mine. You can do this easily by clicking on the user name just above the avatar (of any member). That drops down a menu of actions. One of these actions is to locate more posts by the member.

Another option right under that is "Add member to your ignore list"


I accidentally clicked on that..... here is the message I got from the JREF forum

Thanks for being chairman, I'll try not to ignore you and hope you won't try to ignore yourself

 

[H'ethetheth]

I don't see how the solution to finding a definition of consciousness is to define something else and call it consciousness. The Pixy definition is not even a definition - it's an explanation, if anything. The Turing test is also not a definition - it's a test for the presence of the undefined quality. One could define consciousness as that quality detected by the Turing test, but clearly that's an unsatisfactory definition.

Yet, in my opinion vastly preferable to declaring it impossible to define objectively.

It may or may not be true that the only way to be certain of subjective experience is to experience it. It may also be true that this makes subjective experience outside of scientific interest. However - this doesn't mean that other people's subjective experiences should be of no interest to us as human beings. If Mrs H'ethetheth were to tell Mr H'ethetheth how she feels, and he were to reply that it was entirely uninteresting to him, I don't think that would go down well at all. Other people's subjective experiences are possibly the most important thing to most human beings, next to their own subjective experiences.

Of course they are, but strictly speaking I can only infer Mrs. H'ethetheth's subjective experiences from her objective behaviour. And that also means that the only way there is to decide whether a machine is conscious, is by applying that very same standard.

 

[punshhh]

For one thing, because of the high rate of false positives. I remember watching a paramecium on a microscope slide, and being shocked at how much it looked like a dog searching for a bone (or a skeptic trying to out a woo, or Robert Wright trying to out Daniel Dennett as a Satan worshiper

Let me throw this ball into the melee.

westprog asserted IIRC that a Turing Machine could not be conscious because it didn't have IO or timing control, and therefore couldn't perform interactive functions like controling a ball catching robot.

I'll propose that a true ball catching robot was conscious, because it saw the ball, remembered its position, saw the ball a fraction of a second later, compared its present position with its remembered position, extrapolated its position when it was near enough to catch, rehearsed catching in its internal model of the environment, then reached out its mechanical hand to the ball's future position and instructed the fingers to close in time to grasp the ball before it bounced out. I'm proposing that the robot had a tiny spark of consciousness. Real consciousness. If not, why not?

The ball catching robot is different from a ball catching animal in that it is not alive and the animal is.

Both are exhibiting a form of consciousness, it is the difference between the two that is interesting. Perhaps the robot is conscious in a way similar to a ball catching insect. I'm sure a Praying Mantis would be a good ball catcher, thinking about it, it would probably be the most accomplished catcher in the animal kingdom.

I am also sure the Praying Mantis is not self consciously aware and does not do much thinking. Its behavior is principally instinctive I presume.

 

[PixyMisa]

I don't see how the solution to finding a definition of consciousness is to define something else and call it consciousness. The Pixy definition is not even a definition - it's an explanation, if anything.

It's an operational definition, which means that yes, it's an explanation too.

 

[PixyMisa]

Yes at no time have I stated otherwise. Just like there is a chemical formula for Beethoven's 5th symphony.

No. There's an algorithm for it, though.

However each time its performed the formula is different.

Yes.

suggesting one is not a direct correlation of the other.

No.

Then what are you saying if you are not making this assumption?

It's not an assumption.

If I have used such methods it is because I have reluctantly adopted the parlance of this forum. I don't accuse you of such behavior, you are to the point and honest.

That was a bit unfair on my part, but your accusation is in general untrue, and I've called you out on lazy thinking dozens of times. It's hard not to do it, but it's essential ro try.

Take the above example, when you called it an "assumption" that brain behaviour could also emerge from computers. This is not an assumption, and your saying so is just lazy. It's the subject of an enormous amount of research, and it is, in the end, an inescapable conclusion from the laws of physics. The only question is how detailed the model must be for the behaviour to emerge - high-level function, neural, molecular, or quantum?

There is no sound basis for questioning whether it can be done.

 

[Leumas]

Thanks for being chairman, I'll try not to ignore you and hope you won't try to ignore yourself

 

[Belz...]

Yes, some human beings do this. Most don't, most of the time.

I think you underestimate our ability to anthropomorphize.

If you cannot even accept that "physics" is a real, well-understood term, then I cannot see how you will ever be satisfied.

Dodge.

Westprog, seriously. If you just don't want to answer, that's fine. Don't blame ME for your inability to make yourself clear. I understand "physics" very well. I want to know what YOU mean by "physics" or "physical theory". You know this, stop making a fool of yourself.

 

[PixyMisa]

Yes, some human beings do this. Most don't, most of the time.

No, you're completely wrong there. Everybody does it constantly - your brain can't help it, it's hard-wired to do it - but you learn to consciously override it.

They probably shouldn't, entirely. However, they are the best we have.

And you are again completely wrong. No, our feelings are definitively not the best we have for perceiving consciousness, because we know how those feelings work at the neurological level and we know how and when and why they go wrong.

 

[Belz...]

Well here is one I am qualified to answer.

Sorry. Believing in "mystical" things does not make you qualified for anything.

 

[Mr. Scott]

I CERTAINLY like you.... and your definition above even more so.... I also applauded another post of yours for another good definition.

If this were facebook, I'd put a "like" on that post. Thanks!

 

[Mr. Scott]

I am also sure the Praying Mantis is not self consciously aware and does not do much thinking. Its behavior is principally instinctive I presume.

I'd wondered if self-awareness was a mandatory feature of consciousness, and decided it's wasn't. I also suspect consciousness isn't an either-or state or attribute. There are degrees, or is a spectrum.

Would you say a person who was not self-aware, yet fully conscious in every other way, was NOT conscious? Or merely not conscious of himself?

Actually, losing yourself in an activity (flow) is a highly desired mental state we would not consider uncoscious. Or would we?

 

[yy2bggggs]

• Even though consciousness is undefined, we are still able to discuss it

I'm not sure about this.

 

[punshhh]

Sorry. Believing in "mystical" things does not make you qualified for anything.

What's this use of the word belief?

Do you remember what I said about belief?