Explain consciousness to the layman.

[dafydd]

I am not a biologist so cannot go into much detail in the biochemistry of the brain.

There is a great amount of activity in the brain which is not performing the computation necessary for the inner thinker to realise his/her own self consciousness.

No contradiction there then.

For example consciousness may be an emergent property of some kind of electrostatic activity evolved as a means of maintaining the integrity of the body. Which hand in hand with neural activity results in the holographic 3D experience of consciousness.


Chemistry may be mappable in a computer, it doesn't follow that that chemical activity is a form of computation.

You're off on one of you're Let's Pretend games yet again. What do you mean by 'maintaining the integrity of the body'?

 

[Complexity]

You know how 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing'?

punshhh just had to go all homeopathic on knowledge.

(hint: next time, do the concussing before ingesting)

 

[dafydd]

You know how 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing'?

punshhh just had to go all homeopathic on knowledge.

(hint: next time, do the concussing before ingesting)

I don't know much about this subject but I can recognize mystical nonsense like this when I see it.

''For example consciousness may be an emergent property of some kind of electrostatic activity evolved as a means of maintaining the integrity of the body. Which hand in hand with neural activity results in the holographic 3D experience of consciousness. ''

 

[westprog]

Name something that cannot.

It's a property of reality that it cannot be emulated using a computer. It can be simulated - that is to say, a model can be produced which allows us to predict what will happen in reality. However, the simulation is not the same as the real thing.

I find this a very odd discussion. I can imagine having to tell a small child that Sonic is not a real hedgehog, but not after he reaches schoolgoing age. I shouldn't have to explain that the reason that Sonic isn't real is not because hedgehogs are magic. It's because he's a computer game.

If someone wants to insist that OK, Sonic isn't a real hedgehog, but this program that is going to be written is in fact a real brain, then they need to provide evidence for that claim.

What do the neuroscientists say?

Wikipedia article on consciousness -

"We have no idea how consciousness emerges from the physical activity of the brain and we do not know whether consciousness
can emerge from non-biological systems, such as computers...

What do the computer scientists say?

The Stanford list of common errors regarding the Church Turing thesis.

One notes that these common errors are regularly promulgated here, including yet more extreme versions.

any device or organ whose mathematical description involves functions that are not effectively calculable cannot be so simulated. As Turing showed, there are uncountably many such functions. ... It is an open question whether a completed neuroscience will employ functions that are not effectively calculable.

One would have thought that this would at least give some room for doubt - but no. As I've noted before, constant references to God and magic do not inspire confidence in a theory.

 

[westprog]

Be aware that some care is needed in the selection and use of words here, e.g. the difference between 'simulation' and 'emulation' can cause weeks of confusion because they mean different things to different people.

When I use "simulation" I mean some kind of a model which may not include any of the physical processes which it is mimicking, but which can be used to predict how those processes may interact. Thus we could produce a simulation of hurling live birds at a stack of wooden blocks to see if they would cause it to topple over. The simulation would be much less trouble and more humane, if say we wanted to birdproof a shed.

An emulation would duplicate the essential physical properties of a system. Thus an emulation of a heart would act as a pump. It would not need to emulate the non-essential properties of a heart - it would not need to be made of muscle, for example.

Thus in order to produce an emulation of a system, the essential properties of the system have to be understood and defined.

This distinction seems to me to be useful and objective. If someone has a better definition, then they are welcome to provide it - but some kind of distinction between the two different things is necessary.

 

[westprog]

I don't know much about this subject but I can recognize mystical nonsense like this when I see it.

''For example consciousness may be an emergent property of some kind of electrostatic activity evolved as a means of maintaining the integrity of the body. Which hand in hand with neural activity results in the holographic 3D experience of consciousness. ''

It doesn't seem particularly plausible to me, but it's less mystical than the claim that performing an algorithm can do the same trick.

 

[rocketdodger]

This is one of my points it would remain in a virtual manner. You may well end up with a virtual consciousness, which is unaware of the physical world. It would only receive signals interpreting something from outside the virtual space in which it dwells.

Who cares?

You could still talk to it, and it could still talk to you.

That's the funny thing about information -- virtual information is still information.

 

[rocketdodger]

One would have thought that this would at least give some room for doubt - but no. As I've noted before, constant references to God and magic do not inspire confidence in a theory.

Nice red herring. Fish much?

Pointing out that there are many functions that cannot be calculated has nothing to do with this discussion, unless you claim that consciousness involves such functions, which is a claim you refuse to make.

So, this is merely more dishonest debate tactics, misinformation spread for the benefit of yourself and to the detriment of anyone that hops on the thread to read the discussion.

 

[rocketdodger]

However: Suppose it didn't do that. Suppose much of mental processing remained analog the whole time. (Say, the intensity of electric neurological transmission was analog instead of discreet levels) What then? I still think it would be able to be emulated on a computer, though in "sampled" form.

Yes, I agree with the conclusion -- in any imaginable case, it could be emulated on a computer to a level of precision only limited by the computing power available.

However, nobody is interested in that obvious fact anymore. Everyone who isn't vested in spirituality agrees -- because it is so obvious -- and everyone who is falls back on "but we don't know for sure that there isn't something that can't be emulated" or "but an emulation is not the real thing" or some other nonsense. There isn't any more discussion to be had -- either someone is willing to accept it, or they aren't.

It is a much more active discussion when it comes to the properties of neurons that can be abstracted to other systems, such as their digital nature. There is much more to be learned from such a discussion because even the spiritualists in here at least try to use logic in that respect.

 

[rocketdodger]

When I use "simulation" I mean some kind of a model which may not include any of the physical processes which it is mimicking, but which can be used to predict how those processes may interact. Thus we could produce a simulation of hurling live birds at a stack of wooden blocks to see if they would cause it to topple over. The simulation would be much less trouble and more humane, if say we wanted to birdproof a shed.

An emulation would duplicate the essential physical properties of a system. Thus an emulation of a heart would act as a pump. It would not need to emulate the non-essential properties of a heart - it would not need to be made of muscle, for example.

Thus in order to produce an emulation of a system, the essential properties of the system have to be understood and defined.

This distinction seems to me to be useful and objective. If someone has a better definition, then they are welcome to provide it - but some kind of distinction between the two different things is necessary.

I don't suppose the fact that when information processing systems are "emulated" it typically involves a software "simulation" of them rather than anything overtly physical has any bearing on the discussion.

Naw, of course not.

 

[tsig]

Yes, I agree with the conclusion -- in any imaginable case, it could be emulated on a computer to a level of precision only limited by the computing power available.

However, nobody is interested in that obvious fact anymore. Everyone who isn't vested in spirituality agrees -- because it is so obvious -- and everyone who is falls back on "but we don't know for sure that there isn't something that can't be emulated" or "but an emulation is not the real thing" or some other nonsense. There isn't any more discussion to be had -- either someone is willing to accept it, or they aren't.

It is a much more active discussion when it comes to the properties of neurons that can be abstracted to other systems, such as their digital nature. There is much more to be learned from such a discussion because even the spiritualists in here at least try to use logic in that respect.

I gave up on the endless walls o' waffle a few pages ago. It's obvious that some posters are always going to maintain that there's some mystical, magical or spiritual element to consciousness because they need it to be so not because of any reasoned discourse.

 

[Complexity]

I gave up on the endless walls o' waffle a few pages ago. It's obvious that some posters are always going to maintain that there's some mystical, magical or spiritual element to consciousness because they need it to be so not because of any reasoned discourse.

Of course - we have encountered here the confluence of the life-force, dualist, god-made-me-special, and other-flavors-of-woo sewage streams.

Nothing that time and microbes can't handle, but they keep making more.

 

[westprog]

I gave up on the endless walls o' waffle a few pages ago. It's obvious that some posters are always going to maintain that there's some mystical, magical or spiritual element to consciousness because they need it to be so not because of any reasoned discourse.

Yes, those neuroscientist mystics and Stanford magicians.

 

[Wowbagger]

It's a property of reality that it cannot be emulated using a computer. It can be simulated - that is to say, a model can be produced which allows us to predict what will happen in reality. However, the simulation is not the same as the real thing.

Name one thing in reality that can not ever be sufficiently simulated (or emulated or whatever) in a computer or robot to provide the inputs necessary for consciousness to emerge.

If you can't name anything, then YOU are the one invoking magic. Not me.

Making an argument that a "simulation is not the real thing" is irrelevant. An artificial heart is not the real thing, either, and yet it can pump blood as effectively (or even more efficiently) than the real thing.

What do the neuroscientists say?
(snip)
What do the computer scientists say?

Of course they would say it is inconclusive. What they are NOT doing is offering principles that would make it impossible.

Maybe you should study what science already knows about consciousness. We don't know everything, yet. But, what we do know seems contrary to the notion that consciousness can't ever be simulated or emulated in a machine.

It is a much more active discussion when it comes to the properties of neurons that can be abstracted to other systems, such as their digital nature. There is much more to be learned from such a discussion because even the spiritualists in here at least try to use logic in that respect.

I suppose it depends on what points one is trying to make.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

So in the last dozen or so pages, has there been anything but a circular argument from incredulity? That is, "consciousness can't be simulated because I figure there'll be something that's vital to consciousness which can't be simulated?"

It is a much more active discussion when it comes to the properties of neurons that can be abstracted to other systems, such as their digital nature.

I don't want to start a derail, but what digital nature?

 

[Complexity]

So in the last dozen or so pages, has there been anything but a circular argument from incredulity? That is, "consciousness can't be simulated because I figure there'll be something that's vital to consciousness which can't be simulated?"

Some mockery, but not nearly enough.

 

[Wowbagger]

Yes, those neuroscientist mystics and Stanford magicians.

I have glimsped the articles, but not read them in their entirety, yet.

Does the first one offer any examples of principles that would render the discovery of how consciousness works impossible? Or that it would be impossible for a computer to do it, eventually?

Does the second one actually list anything that can NOT be computed by a Turing Machine, but can yet be computed by another machine?

If the answers to any of these are "yes", I would like them to be pointed out.

 

[Limbo]

Hello old friend.

Making an argument that a "simulation is not the real thing" is irrelevant. An artificial heart is not the real thing, either, and yet it can pump blood as effectively (or even more efficiently) than the real thing.

I am just wondering something. Sorry to interrupt. But is there something about your belief system that leads you to think that pumping blood is all there is to an effective, efficient heart?

"Research now shows that the poets and great scholars throughout history have been right all along. The heart has intelligence and plays a particular role in our experience of emotion and memory."

http://sue-adams.hubpages.com/hub/your-second-brain-is-in-your-heart

 

[dafydd]

Hello old friend.




I am just wondering something. Sorry to interrupt. But is there something about your belief system that leads you to think that pumping blood is all there is to an effective, efficient heart?

"Research now shows that the poets and great scholars throughout history have been right all along. The heart has intelligence and plays a particular role in our experience of emotion and memory."

http://sue-adams.hubpages.com/hub/your-second-brain-is-in-your-heart

It's a pump. What else does it do? Why did you link to a woo site?

 

[Wowbagger]

I don't want to start a derail, but what digital nature?

Not sure if this is what Rocketdodger was refering to, but: Electrical signals in neurons tend to fire in discreet levels, effectively digitizing any information they carry. This is NOT always binary digital (which can be represented by 1s and 0s), but it is not analog in nature, either.

Remember: "Digital" does not always mean "binary". Our usual counting system, using 10 digits (0 to 9) is also digital.... it has digits, you see.

If neurons were analog, any waves of variation would carry from one neuron to the other, like ripples of waves in a pond. What actually happens is that most small variations in the signal are NOT preserved across different neurons it travels across.