Explain consciousness to the layman.

[punshhh]

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?

Yes I agree, I understood, before I began posting on this forum that consciousness was an awareness of its environment by an entity. I am also of the opinion that all living things including plants are conscious.

However I have been told here that this is not what consciousness means. But rather it means a state of self consciousness as experienced by an adult human.

I disagreed vehemently with this interpretation.

 

[Belz...]

What's this use of the word belief?

Do you remember what I said about belief?

Does this post have anything to do with what you replied to ?

 

[westprog]

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

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.

I agree that it's the only way. However, it's not in any way a test that provides scientific certainty.

The main reason why you infer that Mrs H'ethetheth has similar subjective experiences to you is that apart from some minor (though important) differences, she is very similar to you. Her appearance is similar to yours. She seems to work on similar principles, biologically speaking. For her brain to not produce similar subjective experiences seems improbable.

All of the above is evidence. Even when Mr and Mrs H.'s eyes first met across a crowded room, they each were able to surmise that the other had subjective experiences, based on physical similarity. They didn't need to actually interact to assume that.

The Turing test discards a lot of valid evidence. That doesn't make the Turing test worthless - it just makes it a little less certain. There's an attitude that the other evidence that Mrs H. is conscious isn't important. It is - every bit as important as behaviour. When we are evaluating whether the robot maid is conscious, we will naturally apply the same checklist as we do with Mrs H. Mr H. might find that the maid's behaviour is similar to her mistress, but given that other factors are different, he might be less certain that the maid is conscious, and he would be right to do so.

When determining if system B has a quality Q found in system A, we can compare properties. If system A has properties X, Y and Z, and B does as well, we consider that as evidence (not proof!) that B also possesses Q. If system C has property X, but not properties Y and Z, then that is also evidence that C possesses Q, but clearly weaker evidence. This is a normal way of reasoning, and doesn't imply that Q is magic, or god.

Of course, if we fully understand how Q is manifested in system A, then we can safely regard properties Y and Z as unimportant, and be equally certain that B and C both have the property. That is how science is intended to help us make sense of the world.

The Turing test doesn't specify anything about the mechanism of the supposed conscious device. It just restricts the evaluation to a subset of the properties we normally use to identify consciousness. It is hence less reliable.

 

[westprog]

There appears to be some confusion and misunderstanding about my insistence that computation does not constitute a physical (in the sense of relating to physics) process. On the face of it, that seems to be obviously wrong, because all computation takes place in the physical world, and hence must be defined in physical terms. Nevertheless, I will continue to claim (until refuted) that computation is not a physical process, in the sense that it is defined by specific relationships between physical properties.

As an example of a physical relationship between properties, consider the most famous of all - E = mc². It's a precise mathematical relationship between three different physical quantities. It has been a very productive idea, because it is actually possible to create energy directly from mass, in certain circumstances.

Note that we can't replace mass, energy or the speed of light with other quantities. It's a specific mathematical relationship between those physical quantities.

Now, consider the shape of the letter "A". It's quite recognisable. Can we provide a physical definition for it, as with the above equation? Well, if we allow any recognisable representation of the letter, then it's not restricted by any kind of representation. It can be printed in ink, displayed on a screen. It can be an afterimage from a bright light. It can be traced on ones back with a thumb, drawn on a wall with a laser pointer, or be revealed momentarily by entirely unconnected shapes, as in this promotional video for Channel 4 UK.*

Note that the letter is well enough defined that we can clearly recognise it, and interpret it as a letter, use it to make up words and transfer information, and distinguish it from other letters. However, we obviously can't talk about the physical properties of the letter A. We don't expect any physical side-effects associated with the letter, because it's manifestation is not associated with any particular properties.

So if it is claimed that consciousness is an emergent property of computation, then either computation is a well-defined physical process, like the conversion of mass into energy, or it's something that happens to take place in the physical universe, but which cannot reasonably be expected to have any particular physical side-effects. If computation is a well-defined physical process, then it should have a proper physical definition. I don't insist that it's a five-character equation, but it should involve relationships between particular physical qualities. If it is not a physical process, but is more like the letter A, then it cannot reasonably be expected to have any physical side effects.

*It's a 4, not an A. Of course, number plates use 4's as A's to communicate messages quite often.

 

[westprog]

I'm not sure about this.

Well, there are two options open to you if you wish to disagree. Either consciousness is well defined - in which case, a definition should be produced. Or else we aren't able to talk about it at all.

There's a workaround for this of course - just define consciousness to be self-referencing information processing. If this is satisfactory, then you have a definition and you can discuss it on that basis.

 

[punshhh]

Does this post have anything to do with what you replied to ?

You may need to decipher this as I cannot determine your train of thought.

We are not going to get cryptic are we?

 

[rocketdodger]

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?

Well, the most counter-intuitive one: that there actually isn't anything mysterious about it.

I now believe that subjective experience is a property of everything in existence -- it is simply "what it is like to be X" -- and the particular flavor of subjective experience that we have just follows from the way our brain is set up.

Think about it -- what would the experience of a water molecule be? Not much. You probably wouldn't even call it subjective experience, except there is no reason not to, because it isn't anything much. People want to find a qualitative difference between a water molecule's experience and our experience and I don't think there is one.

The difference is quantitative. We are bodies composed of trillions of molecules, whereas a water molecule is one molecule. Our information processing consists of a neural network with billions of switches, a water molecule is just one molecule. We have senses and memory and all the stuff in between. A water molecule has none of that. So of course our subjective experience is infinitely richer than that of a water molecule.

Notice how easy this makes things. Now instead of trying to figure out what the magic ingredient that makes subjective experience, we can just figure out for instance how our vision system records perceptions in memory and our cognition accesses them later. You don't even need to think in terms of "subjective" -- that follows automatically.

Take a system that processes information like our nervous system ( brain included ) and you have objectively the same behavior as ourselves. Then just apply the "what it is like to be like X" and you have subjective behavior.

Note that this implies it is impossible to fully understand the subjective experience of something else -- in order to know what it is like to be X, when you are Y, is impossible by definition. You have to be X to know what it is like to be X.

Also note, however, that there is no logical argument against this position. The only argument you will ever hear is the knee-jerk "a water molecule has subjective experience? That is just stupid and absurd" response that people give when they haven't actually thought about it.

 

[punshhh]

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

How does the algorithm sound?

Yes.

I wonder what is required for the algorithm to result in a sound like a good performance of the symphony.

No.

Perhaps in a digital representation.


It's not an assumption.Then what is it and what are you saying?

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.

Nonsense, your interpretation is incorrect in these cases which you are projecting onto me.

Who knows what I am talking about, me or you?

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?

I am aware of the sophistication in this field of study. I have stated that I accept that the activity of the brain can be simulated by computers. I was stating that it is an assumption that consciousness, more precisely the self consciousness of a human, can be produced by a computer.

Might I refer you to Westprog's point that this computation is not a physical process, it is virtual. Whereas the emergence of consciousness from the brain is a physical process resulting in an embedded physical subjective presence in the physical world.

The entity has a presence a being in physical reality.

 

[Minoosh]

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

I kind of do and brought it up in the context of an athlete being in the zone or a Zen archer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_in_the_Art_of_Archery

For example, a central idea in the book is that through years of practice, a physical activity becomes effortless both mentally and physically, as if the body executes complex and difficult movements without conscious control from the mind.

"Self consciousness" can hurt performance. It's got a connotation of negativity vs. "self awareness," though by dictionary definitions they should be pretty close to the same meaning. I really don't know why consciousness per se would be particularly important for survival. Self-protective impulses would suffice under a lot of circumstances. For this reason I'm not totally sold on the idea that human consciousness is a manifestation of a quantitative continuum. If that makes me guilty of embracing a "consciousness of the gaps" - oh well. Bertrand Russell's paean to human thought describes something other animals don't seem to apply to their own existence.

On the other hand to become a good athlete or pianist or skier you have to do drills in which you're very self-conscious until the skill becomes "second nature." A beginning skier might be told to hold a pole straight out in front of them, parallel to the ground and perpendicular to the body. In skiing leaning into your weight is important for control but it's counterintuitive. I never got great at skiing but am used to being able to see my hands. It's saved me from a lot of falls.

 

[tsig]

I agree that it's the only way. However, it's not in any way a test that provides scientific certainty.

The main reason why you infer that Mrs H'ethetheth has similar subjective experiences to you is that apart from some minor (though important) differences, she is very similar to you. Her appearance is similar to yours. She seems to work on similar principles, biologically speaking. For her brain to not produce similar subjective experiences seems improbable.

All of the above is evidence. Even when Mr and Mrs H.'s eyes first met across a crowded room, they each were able to surmise that the other had subjective experiences, based on physical similarity. They didn't need to actually interact to assume that.

The Turing test discards a lot of valid evidence. That doesn't make the Turing test worthless - it just makes it a little less certain. There's an attitude that the other evidence that Mrs H. is conscious isn't important. It is - every bit as important as behaviour. When we are evaluating whether the robot maid is conscious, we will naturally apply the same checklist as we do with Mrs H. Mr H. might find that the maid's behaviour is similar to her mistress, but given that other factors are different, he might be less certain that the maid is conscious, and he would be right to do so.

When determining if system B has a quality Q found in system A, we can compare properties. If system A has properties X, Y and Z, and B does as well, we consider that as evidence (not proof!) that B also possesses Q. If system C has property X, but not properties Y and Z, then that is also evidence that C possesses Q, but clearly weaker evidence. This is a normal way of reasoning, and doesn't imply that Q is magic, or god.

Of course, if we fully understand how Q is manifested in system A, then we can safely regard properties Y and Z as unimportant, and be equally certain that B and C both have the property. That is how science is intended to help us make sense of the world.

The Turing test doesn't specify anything about the mechanism of the supposed conscious device. It just restricts the evaluation to a subset of the properties we normally use to identify consciousness. It is hence less reliable.

How does any of that explain consciousness to the layman?

 

[Leumas]

[snip]

"Self consciousness" can hurt performance. It's got a connotation of negativity vs. "self awareness," though by dictionary definitions they should be pretty close to the same meaning. I really don't know why consciousness per se would be particularly important for survival. Self-protective impulses would suffice under a lot of circumstances. For this reason I'm not totally sold on the idea that human consciousness is a manifestation of a quantitative continuum. If that makes me guilty of embracing a "consciousness of the gaps" - oh well. Bertrand Russell's paean to human thought describes something other animals don't seem to apply to their own existence.

[snip]

What does having blue or green eyes have to do with survival? What does having red hair have to do with survival? What does hair on the face (and other parts) have to do with survival especially for women? What does an appendix have to do with survival? What do the muscles for moving the ears (which some can control) have to do with survival?

Many things are VESTIGES of evolution and many other things are BY-PRODUCTS of evolution.

A side effect of all the bundles and cortexes of the brain that evolved for particular survival purposes is an additional by-product which is the ability to take an overall introspective look at the actions of the bundles.

When you burn your finger on a hot stove and immediately shirk your arm to remove the finger from the heat source you did not think about it in any manner whatsoever.

If you analyze the details of the actions that the body and brain had to accomplish to effect the removal of the finger away from harm you would realize the STAGGERING complexity.

However, all that was accomplished without a SINGLE INTENTIONAL thought by your consciousness. It was your brain working BY ITSELF without any CONSCIOUS INTENTIONS.

Most of the actions one takes throughout one's existence are precisely like the finger shirking reaction described above..... totally automatic.

A baby who emerges out of his mother and starts crying does so with all the muscular activations to squint and contort the facial muscles and move the air through the larynx and so on and so forth to put that look of pain on the face and sound out that shriek.

Where did the baby learn that? How did the brain learn to put on that look of consternation on the face? The baby could certainly cry without all that muscular contortion of the face. So where did that come from?

The baby could not be considered conscious...can it? How does it know that the look on the face is also just as important as the sound and why THAT particular look....where did it learn that from? All those muscular activation in the muscles of the face are a LOT of work for the brain to bring about. So WHY is it necessary in a baby when the piercing cry is just as effective? What process enabled the brain to KNOW the activations necessary to bring about the look? Could it be already WIRED to “know”?


If you study Chaos Theory you will see that sometimes surprising complexity can emerge out of absolute chaos. You will also see that the INTERACTION of various chaotic systems can result in spots of “order”.

The brain is just a bundle of chaos that produces “order” and the FEEDBACK can generate more and more effects that generate further feedback and the resulting cascade of cause and effect cause further effects.... this IS consciousness. It is just a SIDE EFFECT of the action of the brain.

 

[westprog]

How does any of that explain consciousness to the layman?

That was post 1070. Which posts so far do you think have done a better job?

 

[tsig]

That was post 1070. Which posts so far do you think have done a better job?

Consciousness is electro-chemical reactions in the brain*.

*brain being that three pounds of matter between your ears.

 

[PixyMisa]

I'm not sure about this.

Given the way these discussions go, I'd say that it's categorically false. A false premise and a false conclusion too.

 

[rocketdodger]

There appears to be some confusion and misunderstanding about my insistence that computation does not constitute a physical (in the sense of relating to physics) process. On the face of it, that seems to be obviously wrong, because all computation takes place in the physical world, and hence must be defined in physical terms. Nevertheless, I will continue to claim (until refuted) that computation is not a physical process, in the sense that it is defined by specific relationships between physical properties.

As an example of a physical relationship between properties, consider the most famous of all - E = mc². It's a precise mathematical relationship between three different physical quantities. It has been a very productive idea, because it is actually possible to create energy directly from mass, in certain circumstances.

Note that we can't replace mass, energy or the speed of light with other quantities. It's a specific mathematical relationship between those physical quantities.

Now, consider the shape of the letter "A". It's quite recognisable. Can we provide a physical definition for it, as with the above equation? Well, if we allow any recognisable representation of the letter, then it's not restricted by any kind of representation. It can be printed in ink, displayed on a screen. It can be an afterimage from a bright light. It can be traced on ones back with a thumb, drawn on a wall with a laser pointer, or be revealed momentarily by entirely unconnected shapes, as in this promotional video for Channel 4 UK.*

Note that the letter is well enough defined that we can clearly recognise it, and interpret it as a letter, use it to make up words and transfer information, and distinguish it from other letters. However, we obviously can't talk about the physical properties of the letter A. We don't expect any physical side-effects associated with the letter, because it's manifestation is not associated with any particular properties.

So if it is claimed that consciousness is an emergent property of computation, then either computation is a well-defined physical process, like the conversion of mass into energy, or it's something that happens to take place in the physical universe, but which cannot reasonably be expected to have any particular physical side-effects. If computation is a well-defined physical process, then it should have a proper physical definition. I don't insist that it's a five-character equation, but it should involve relationships between particular physical qualities. If it is not a physical process, but is more like the letter A, then it cannot reasonably be expected to have any physical side effects.

*It's a 4, not an A. Of course, number plates use 4's as A's to communicate messages quite often.

The fact that we can say "computation is occuring on a powered CPU but not on an un-powered CPU" seems to suggest that whatever the definition happens to be, it is certainly physical in nature.

You can obfuscate all you want, but that fact remains.

 

[PixyMisa]

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

Good question. In a sense, yes, you're unconscious, or at least less conscious, when in a state of flow, because flow is largely about getting your metacognitive faculties to shut the hell up.

 

[westprog]

Consciousness is electro-chemical reactions in the brain*.

*brain being that three pounds of matter between your ears.

Well, I'm glad we've gotten rid of that machine consciousness idea.

 

[dlorde]

I kind of do and brought it up in the context of an athlete being in the zone or a Zen archer.

Yes; I occasionally used to get 'in the zone' when playing squash. But you are conscious in the zone, it's just that your consciousness feels seamlessly integrated with the rest of the system.

I really don't know why consciousness per se would be particularly important for survival.

I suspect it developed as part of social evolution, along with deception, etc. As social interactions become more complex and sophisticated, not only does the differentiation between self and other become important (in dominance hierarchies, alliances, companionship, rivalries, etc.), it becomes increasingly advantageous to be able to predict someone else's behaviour; to see what they may be likely to do in various scenarios, you need a 'theory of mind' - a way to model their thinking, put yourself in their shoes. The more sophisticated this ability becomes in the population, the more sophisticated it needs to be to gain an advantage, so it is a positive feedback development. If you have the ability to mentally model a rough approximation of someone else's mind, the best way to improve the performance of this modeling is to adjust and refine it using an example you know particularly well - your own thought patterns. This requires a degree of introspection which will give a degree of self-awareness. There is also an advantage to being better able to predict how you are likely to feel and behave in various scenarios. Increasing sophistication of the theory of mind and increasing self-awareness co-evolve.

Sounds plausible to me, anyhow.

 

[dlorde]

If you study Chaos Theory you will see that sometimes surprising complexity can emerge out of absolute chaos. You will also see that the INTERACTION of various chaotic systems can result in spots of “order”.

Strictly speaking, it isn't absolute chaos, it's deterministic chaos, and islands of order often emerge in single chaotic systems, without interaction.

The brain is just a bundle of chaos that produces “order” and the FEEDBACK can generate more and more effects that generate further feedback and the resulting cascade of cause and effect cause further effects.... this IS consciousness. It is just a SIDE EFFECT of the action of the brain.

There are know to be individual chaotic circuits in the brain, but it wouldn't operate coherently if that was its main driver, and measurements show mainly coherent and coordinated waves of activity that are not associated with chaotic attractors. Not to say chaos isn't involved, but it isn't a dominant feature - as I understand it, it operates in a state of self-organized criticality, i.e. on the verge of chaotic activity, but not chaotic.

The problem I see with consciousness being a side-effect is that with such a fine balance between energy demand and functionality, the energy cost of supporting such a seemingly extensive side-effect as consciousness would be prohibitive unless it had a positive selective advantage of itself - in which case, it wouldn't really be a side-effect...

 

[Complexity]

Well, I'm glad we've gotten rid of that machine consciousness idea.

Nonsense.

Nothing has been 'gotten rid of' - you're simply ignoring it.