Explain consciousness to the layman.

[westprog]

Are you saying that the brain doesn't compute ?

I'm relieved to see that Piggy gets this as well. There's no satisfactory definition of computing that doesn't include your lower intestine just as much as your brain.

 

[westprog]

since when?

1984.

 

[Belz...]

It would be virtual, where is its 3D presence in the physical world?

Interface.

 

[Belz...]

I'm relieved to see that Piggy gets this as well. There's no satisfactory definition of computing that doesn't include your lower intestine just as much as your brain.

Unfortunately that could also mean that _nothing_ computes, so we're back to saying that the brain does something that is like what a computer does, now that we've decided to drop the term that made that sentence shorter.

 

[yy2bggggs]

Unfortunately that could also mean that _nothing_ computes, so we're back to saying that the brain does something that is like what a computer does, now that we've decided to drop the term that made that sentence shorter.

Yeah, but then one could ask what in particular it's doing that is like a computer. Perhaps we should simply take note that the brain produces a model which allows it to predict what will happen in reality.

 

[tsig]

I'm relieved to see that Piggy gets this as well. There's no satisfactory definition of computing that doesn't include your lower intestine just as much as your brain.

Gut instincts?

 

[westprog]

I accept that a virtual consciousness could exist in a computer, but it would dwell in a virtual realm and would be very different to consciousness as we know it.

It's important to realise that there are no "virtual realms". Computer programs run on computers in this world. They aren't isolated from interaction with the rest of the universe. A system can be considered in isolation, but that's just a useful fiction. There are no isolated pocket universes, and if there were, we couldn't interact with them, by definition.

 

[westprog]

Unfortunately that could also mean that _nothing_ computes, so we're back to saying that the brain does something that is like what a computer does, now that we've decided to drop the term that made that sentence shorter.

Clearly, "something like what a computer does" is a fairly vague description, and not something suitable to base a theory on.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

[Consciousness is] most certainly not "whatever the brain does".

Consciousness is what the brain is doing when you are awake, or asleep and dreaming, which it is not doing when you are asleep and not dreaming or when you are under profound sedation.

I don't like it when people tell me I'm wrong and then agree with me.

 

[westprog]

I don't like it when people tell me I'm wrong and then agree with me.

He wasn't agreeing with you. He was strongly disagreeing. If consciousness is "whatever the brain does" that include every function of the brain. Cellular decay would be part of consciousness. Blood flow would be part of consciousness. Consciousness would be irrevocably tied to the human brain.

Piggy suggested that if we look at the brain when it is conscious, and when it isn't* (asleep, in a coma) then the difference constitutes consciousness. The advantage of this approach is that it allows us to eliminate most of "what the brain does", since most of what the brain does it does when you're asleep as well.

As a way to define consciousness, it's certainly an improvement, though it leaves us with the question of how to analyse that difference and possibly replicate it. Note that the "unconscious" brain remains just as computational in nature.

*Leaving aside the questions of dreams, etc.

 

[rocketdodger]

piggy:

what if we are all living in a simulation right now?

wouldn't that sort of defeat your entire argument if it were true?

if you don't think we are living in a simulation, do you have any evidence to support your conclusion ?

 

[rocketdodger]

Note that the "unconscious" brain remains just as computational in nature.

Well, you also claim a bowl of soup is just as computational in nature as the computer you are using right now, so...

 

[tsig]

He wasn't agreeing with you. He was strongly disagreeing. If consciousness is "whatever the brain does" that include every ]function of the brain. Cellular decay would be part of consciousness. Blood flow would be part of consciousness. Consciousness would be irrevocably tied to the human brain.
Piggy suggested that if we look at the brain when it is conscious, and when it isn't* (asleep, in a coma) then the difference constitutes consciousness. The advantage of this approach is that it allows us to eliminate most of "what the brain does", since most of what the brain does it does when you're asleep as well.

As a way to define consciousness, it's certainly an improvement, though it leaves us with the question of how to analyse that difference and possibly replicate it. Note that the "unconscious" brain remains just as computational in nature.

*Leaving aside the questions of dreams, etc.

Straw man.

Equivocation fallacy.

Equivocation:
using a word to mean one thing, and then later using it to mean something different. For example, sometimes "Free software" costs nothing, and sometimes it is without restrictions. Some examples:

"The sign said 'fine for parking here', and since it was fine, I parked there."

All trees have bark.
All dogs bark.
Therefore, all dogs are trees.

"Consider that two wrongs never make a right, but that three lefts do."
- "Deteriorata", National Lampoon

 

[Piggy]

This isn't quite true. There are many necessary requirements on the "world of the simulation" regarding various mappings of particular interest to (or from) the thing being simulated, which greatly constrain what must be true of the "world of simulation" outside of any interpretation of a mind.

The constraints don't matter.

You're either building a representation or a reproduction.

If you're building a reproduction, it does whatever the original does in the real world, as long as it's precise enough.

If you're making a representation, then the medium -- paper and ink, clay, a computer, whatever -- is the only thing objectively real. The thing represented -- whether a tornado or an auto race or a brain -- has no real existence but is a figment of the imagination of the perceiver.

We have 2 possible spaces to discuss -- the real world and our imagination.

There are no other spaces.

If you claim that new spaces are indeed created by representations, which are neither plain old physical reality nor the imagination of the perceiver, then you're going to have to explain how that happens, where they exist, the physics (or metaphysics) involved, etc.

Failing that, it makes no sense to speak of what is "real" inside any representation.

 

[Piggy]

That's the diametric opposite of reality. Your position requires that consciousness is necessarily non-computable. There is not the slightest reason to believe that.

Well, that's where your thinking will lead you if you begin at the end.

But if you don't mind explaining what "consciousness is computable" means, then we'll see if you mean anything coherent by that, and if so, we'll see what the implications are.

 

[Piggy]

Nope. Wrong. If they act conscious, if they can actually reflect on their own mental processes, that's proof that they are conscious.

There's no "they" to discuss.

It's like saying that if a digital computer simulation of a tornado acts like it's moving at 60 miles per hour, that's proof that the simulated tornado really is moving.

But of course, that's not the case. In the real world, the computer is doing what a computer does, not tearing across a cornfield.

When I look at the screen, the display causes me to imagine a tornado moving at 60 mph, but that's all.

Ditto with any other computer-generated representation.

If you want to say that the tornado "really exists" somewhere, you're going to have to explain how.

If you say that it doesn't, but that a simulated brain is different (despite the computer behaving essentially the same as it does while running any other sim) then you also to explain how this occurs.

 

[Piggy]

How is a simulated story different from a real story, Piggy? You've never even attempted to address that.

Why would I? The question doesn't even make sense, nor do I see how it might be relevant if it did.

 

[Piggy]

Are you saying that the brain doesn't compute?

As always, depends on what you mean.

If you adopt Wolfram's definition, then my brain computes, my laptop computes, my heart computes, the oceans compute, and stars compute.

If you have a narrower definition which encompasses my brain and my laptop, but which excludes all these other things, then let's hear it and see if it's helpful.

So far, we've had to settle for the claim that they're both "information processors"... but if that's the basis for saying "your brain is a computer" then we'll also have to assert that "your laptop is a Whammo Super Spy Decoder Ring."

 

[Piggy]

Unfortunately that could also mean that _nothing_ computes, so we're back to saying that the brain does something that is like what a computer does, now that we've decided to drop the term that made that sentence shorter.

It does some things that are kinda like that.

But it's clear that brains and computers are neither structurally nor functionally equivalent.

Therefore, the claim "your brain is a computer" needs some clarification.

So far, we've been given an obviously over-broad application of Church-Turing which cannot be found in Church-Turing.

We've been waiting for some satisfactory evidence for this alleged equivalence, but it always ends up in a trivial claim which amounts to something like "brains and computers conform with the laws of physics".

If I've missed something, then please remind me.

 

[Piggy]

I don't like it when people tell me I'm wrong and then agree with me.

Then take another look at those two sentences you quoted there.

You cannot say, at the same time, that consciousness is specific function of the brain (what it's doing under certain specific conditions and not under others) and that it is also "whatever the brain does".