• 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.
dlorde said:
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.
Click to expand...


Squash used to be my favorite game until my knees became too old for it. Now my favorite game is the Sauna and Jacuzzi. :(


dlorde said:
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...
Click to expand...


Since there is not a SINGLE area of the brain that actually constitutes an organ that confers consciousness and it is rather the WHOLE brain that does it then it is a side effect of the workings of the entire brain rather than one particular mechanism that evolved.

Also it is a side effect in the sense that there is no particular original survival advantage to have made it evolve organically out of the organs that constitute the brain.

But once the POSITIVE FEEDBACK got initiated as a CONSEQUENCE of the workings of the brain with all its systems working together it ENFORCED the island of order and made it a more STABLE attractor. The reasons are what you mention in the quote below.

Thus, what I mean by side effect here is that it is not some physical organ that evolved due to a survival advantage. It is more of a SOCIALLY advantageous development like language or art.

I guess you can argue that social advantages bestow reproductive advantages now that we can no longer INDIVIDUALLY easily go around raping and pillaging .... Darn that civilization stuff :D ... and that is evolutionary..... In that sense then yes it did have a direct evolutionary advantage…. I agree.



dlorde said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Leumas said:
Since there is not a SINGLE area of the brain that actually constitutes an organ that confers consciousness and it is rather the WHOLE brain that does it then it is a side effect of the workings of the entire brain rather than one particular mechanism that evolved.
Click to expand...
So, by the same argument, is vision. Which rather suggests that the argument is flawed.

And while consciousness is not localised to a single part of the brain, it does appear to be organised around specific areas such as the anterior cingulate cortex. This is the subject of ongoing research, so I won't make too bold a claim in this respect, but the evidence does seem to be lining up behind it.
 
PixyMisa said:
So, by the same argument, is vision. Which rather suggests that the argument is flawed.

And while consciousness is not localised to a single part of the brain, it does appear to be organised around specific areas such as the anterior cingulate cortex. This is the subject of ongoing research, so I won't make too bold a claim in this respect, but the evidence does seem to be lining up behind it.
Click to expand...


No.
 
westprog said:
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.
Click to expand...
I agree with almost all of this. Where I think we disagree, is that I don't see why one wouldn't call a robot conscious, if it behaves as though it is conscious. It is, after all, equally unknowable as the consciousness of other people is to me.
I can only study behavior and the neural correlates to that behavior. If those are significantly similar in a human and a robot, why should we doubt the consciousness of the robot?
In fact, why should we not define the robot as conscious in that case?
 
Last edited:
PixyMisa said:
Sorry, but you're doing that wrong. A simple no only works when you have established your position and the other party is talking nonsense. Neither of those are true, so you go back three spaces and miss a turn.
Click to expand...



Precisely.... therefore my original No was fully justified and still stands.
 
Last edited:
H'ethetheth said:
I agree with almost all of this. Where I think we disagree, is that I don't see why one wouldn't call a robot conscious, if it behaves as though it is conscious. It is, after all, equally unknowable as the consciousness of other people is to me.
I can only study behavior and the neural correlates to that behavior. If those are significantly similar in a human and a robot, why should we doubt the consciousness of the robot?
In fact, why should we not define the robot as conscious in that case?
Click to expand...

What we will do when we eventually have conscious-seeming robots is not a pressing problem, but I will feel entitled to have doubts whether they are really conscious or not, unless additional evidence is provided.
 
westprog said:
What we will do when we eventually have conscious-seeming robots is not a pressing problem, but I will feel entitled to have doubts whether they are really conscious or not, unless additional evidence is provided.
Click to expand...

If "seeming" conscious is the only way you can tell whether something is conscious or not, what additional evidence are you expecting ?

In fact, how do you know anything is conscious, then ?
 
punshhh said:
I don't believe mystical things, I bear them in mind like I do science etc.
Click to expand...

If you don't believe in them how do you bear them in mind?

Does your mind hibernate?
 
Last edited:
How are you guys doing with the "explain consciousness to the layman" bit? This istuff is all very amusing and all (punshhh is especially risible), but seems to be avoiding the OP.
 
tsig said:
Consciousness is electro-chemical reactions in the brain*.

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

Jeff Corey said:
How are you guys doing with the "explain consciousness to the layman" bit? This istuff is all very amusing and all (punshhh is especially risible), but seems to be avoiding the OP.
Click to expand...

How are you doing with the "read the thread thing"?
 
Belz... said:
If "seeming" conscious is the only way you can tell whether something is conscious or not, what additional evidence are you expecting ?
Click to expand...

I don't expect any better evidence, though I don't preclude the possibility.

In fact, how do you know anything is conscious, then ?
Click to expand...

You don't.

If the evidence is lacking, it's not scientifically sound to pretend that it's there.
 
Jeff Corey said:
Just fine. I'm just waiting for an "explanation", not a superficial description.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should consider the possibility that what you want isn't available. The people posting here mostly have an interest in the subject. There's a wealth of material out there on the web, for those who don't have books on the subject. If a succinct comprehensible summary hasn't been given, to your satisfaction, possibly there isn't one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom