Explain consciousness to the layman.

[Belz...]

No, hearts have more than one potential pattern of impulses -- normal beat, tachycardia, fibrillation... these are all workable solutions to the problem of how to get from A to B.

The heart is a switch, and switching to the wrong setting will kill you.

Now, if a calculation is the application of a rule to an input in order to produce an output, then of course the oceans are literally seas of chemical calculations running according to the rules of physics.

I just think we're broadening the definitions of those words to the point of making them nonsensical and useless.

So when you say "your brain is a computer", you mean they both "compute".

Ok, well, doesn't a Whammo Super Spy Decoder Ring also "compute"?

What's a Whammo Super Spy Decoder Ring, and where can I find one ?

And unless you're using Wolfram's definition (which it doesn't seem you are) then I'd like to know what you mean by the word in any case.

I've already told you. Performing algorithms and calculations is a good start, but we already know what happened with those words, here.

 

[Belz...]

Coherence doesn't contradict my point at all.

And yes, the fact that the simulated tornado cannot blow anything down does in fact mean that there's no real tornado.

"Real" in which frame of reference ?

 

[Belz...]

They have transitions between different states, which can be mapped to the execution of an algorithm.

I'm not asking whether you can program an algorithm that can predict how the ocean behaves or if it changes state. I'm asking you how oceans PERFORM algorithms.

 

[rocketdodger]

I broadly agree with what you said above about the nature of our universe boiling down to a set of particle-field interactions (hence the descriptions I have given before of "Universe/Big-Bang from Nothing", however, I think there is a problem with the quote above -

- how will you create particles in any model/simulated world, without transferring information from the particles that presently make up our own universe?

If you have to lose information from particles in our universe every time you create or simulate a particle in some other world, then the process is self-defeating and physically impossible, because it cannot be done without changing the particles of our present world/universe.

The only way you could make a simulated world like that, would be if there was absolutely no connection between the simulated world and our universe. But in that case, by definition, there would be no longer be any way to produce the simulation, because there would be no possibility of any transfer between the two unconnected worlds.

It doesn't have to match our frame, particle for particle. I didn't intend for the idea to be interpreted as building a perfect simulation of our entire universe, I intended for it to be interpreted as building a simulation where the parts behave like the parts of our own universe.

If you want to do the former, then yes there are some logical inconsistencies, but they don't detract from the essentials of the argument -- how the simulation is constructed is not important, what is important is how the parts of it behave once it is fully constructed.

From a mathematical standpoint, it is obvious that if a simulation is built in our universe, using our particles, then the universe of the simulation either needs to operate at an absolutely slower rate or else be composed of an absolutely smaller number of simulated particles. Just look at what we have to work with now -- how many bits and cycles would simulating even two particles to a planck resolution require? And is it even possible to compute fast enough to have the simulated particles interact at the same rate as the particles in our universe? And given our current tech, how many of our particles are required to support those bits and cycles? So very quickly ( given our current level of computing ) you would exhaust available resources if you were building such a simulation.

 

[!Kaggen]

I'm not asking whether you can program an algorithm that can predict how the ocean behaves or if it changes state. I'm asking you how oceans PERFORM algorithms.

The same way a brain doesn't.

 

[rocketdodger]

Huh ?

Hearts take a very large set of external world states and map it to a very small set of internal states. That is a calculation, or a computation, or whatever you want to call it.

You can pretty much assume that any component of a living organism is based on such a principle, since that is what makes life ... life.

 

[Piggy]

I'm trying to get my head around the idea that if you don't believe in these virtual worlds, then you're a dualist.

In RD's case, it seems to be related to a philosophical notion that, because we can access the subatomic world only by gleaning information about interactions of stuff that we can't access directly, then it must be non-stuff with no qualities, and the interactions must be all that's real. (All syntax, no semantics.)

From there, it is apparently deduced that information about interactions (syntax) alone is enough to produce a "real world"... because, hey, it produces our world!

Then there's a tremendous leap out of the subatomic realm to the macro world, and this unsupported philosophy is applied here, too, so that preserving information about a system's interactions is enough to replicate that system.

This would mean that if I preserve enough information about my house in a blueprint, so that it would allow the house to be perfectly rebuilt, then I have actually created a new house by virtue of creating the blueprint, and I don't have to bother to actually build it.

When it's put like that, of course it's exposed as a ridiculous notion.

But bring computers into the mix, and it's supposed to be different, because computers are programmable -- in other words, you can decide the syntax, which means if you reproduce the house symbolically via computer (rather than a blueprint) you have actually created a new system that we can speak of as having an independent existence somewhere other than the physical world in which the computer exists and somewhere other than in our imaginations, because you've preserved the syntax.

The problem here is that the introduction of the computer, rather than paper, doesn't change the fact that there simply is no other frame of reference available besides the physical universe and our imaginations.

Nor does it change the fact that the qualities of the media used for symbolic reproductions remain what they are, regardless of the qualities of the system being symbolized.

Nor does it change the fact that the symbols -- whether on a blueprint or a computer monitor -- can only be associated with the system being represented if they are observed and interpreted, and that this takes place in the observer's imagination, not in any other "world".

So if I want to create a new house, I can't recreate the old one symbolically. I have to do it non-symbolically, with actual building materials. (And this is true regardless of anyone's philosophy about the quantum foam.)

And if I want a machine that paints cars, it can have a computer in it, but I can't program a computer to paint cars... I have to build a machine that paints cars.

So back to consciousness....

Nature builds all the organs of our bodies out of real stuff. And all the bodily functions are carried out by real stuff in real spacetime. Consciousness should be no exception.

So if you want a conscious machine, you'll have to build it. There is no reason to believe that we can dispense with the building and simply program an otherwise non-conscious machine to be conscious.

 

[rocketdodger]

Where does the "other world separate from us" come in between the kid pressing the button and the image on the screen changing in ways that make the kid imagine a person jumping?

Same stuff yy2bggggs is speaking with you about. I suggest you listen to him, and really try to think about what he is saying, because he is one of the smartest people on the entire forum.

And he is correct.

The world of the simulation is a world because it operates according to a set of mathematical rules. Those rules exist without humans, humans have nothing to do with it. Yeah a human builds the world, but once that is done, the world operates like our world does even when nobody is monitoring it -- according to a set of rules. The rules are invariant, just like they are in our world. The fact that the rules in the simulation are different from the rules of our world ( although not really, since mathematical isomorphisms will always exist ) has nothing to do with anything -- it is a world in and of itself nonetheless.

 

[Piggy]

Only in the sense that "real tornado" idiomatically refers to a particular weather pattern. It is not true that "simulated tornado" is not a real thing, and is also not true that "simulated tornado" does not have particular kinds of effects.

Of course the simulation has effects. It's just that they are not related to the effects of tornadoes.

What's real when it comes to the simulation is the device running the sim and the person interpreting the output.

The "tornado" is a figment of the imagination of the observer. It does not exist in the world of matter and energy. Nor is some strange new world created by the simulation for it to exist in.

 

[rocketdodger]

You could take an idea into another world as a "set of rules", but that alone won’t produce any particles at all. You would need to actually transport real properties of the fields and particles into that other world ... but doing that would destroy the very same particles and fields in the donor world. That’s why it won’t work.

But this is not true -- if the set of rules exactly corresponds to the same set of rules that our particles behave according to, then actual particles will be produced in the other worlds.

Look at what you said:

You would need to actually transport real properties of the fields and particles into that other world

--- haven't we agreed that the "real" properties are simply the rules they use to interact? That was the whole point of me going on about how physics can't elucidate anything about particles other than the way they interact.

 

[rocketdodger]

Of course the simulation has effects. It's just that they are not related to the effects of tornadoes.

What's real when it comes to the simulation is the device running the sim and the person interpreting the output.

The "tornado" is a figment of the imagination of the observer. It does not exist in the world of matter and energy. Nor is some strange new world created by the simulation for it to exist in.

Ok lets try another approach piggy.

Assume you have a simulation, with a simulated tornado and a simulated house. The simulation is always running.

One night a tech looks at the screen and sees that the house is still standing.

The next morning he checks, and somehow the house is now destroyed, and the tornado is gone.

What happened?

 

[Piggy]

Same stuff yy2bggggs is speaking with you about. I suggest you listen to him, and really try to think about what he is saying, because he is one of the smartest people on the entire forum.

And he is correct.

The world of the simulation is a world because it operates according to a set of mathematical rules. Those rules exist without humans, humans have nothing to do with it. Yeah a human builds the world, but once that is done, the world operates like our world does even when nobody is monitoring it -- according to a set of rules. The rules are invariant, just like they are in our world. The fact that the rules in the simulation are different from the rules of our world ( although not really, since mathematical isomorphisms will always exist ) has nothing to do with anything -- it is a world in and of itself nonetheless.

So if I write up a blueprint of my house which preserves enough information so that the house could be rebuilt exactly, have I thereby created some new world in which a house exists?

If not, why not? And why should switching from paper to a computer change that?

Again, preserving information symbolically does not create a new instance -- in any space other than our imaginations -- of the system being symbolized.

I asked you for a mechanism for this alleged process, and you simply told me that you "think" that simulations are "worlds" in which self-reflective beings could muse about their environment.

Yet this response did not provide any mechanism.

I want to hear a description of the mechanism for creating and destroying these worlds you think are somehow real and not imaginary.

 

[rocketdodger]

This is simply false. I've done a lot of explaining, and I've been responding to you.

And this discussion of the "reality" (or not) of subatomic particles is irrelevant to the issue we're supposed to be discussing, which corresponds to our human level of magnification.

If you want to bring it back around to something relevant, great.

Just look at what you said, though -- that the notions of reality of the fundamental building blocks of our universe are irrelevant to the issue of whether or not a consciousness built from such fundamental blocks is real.

Doesn't that seem a bit inconsistent to you? To think you can discuss the reality of a consciousness without referencing the reality of the particles that make it up ?

 

[rocketdodger]

So if I write up a blueprint of my house which preserves enough information so that the house could be rebuilt exactly, have I thereby created some new world in which a house exists?

If not, why not? And why should switching from paper to a computer change that?

Again, preserving information symbolically does not create a new instance -- in any space other than our imaginations -- of the system being symbolized.

I asked you for a mechanism for this alleged process, and you simply told me that you "think" that simulations are "worlds" in which self-reflective beings could muse about their environment.

Yet this response did not provide any mechanism.

I want to hear a description of the mechanism for creating and destroying these worlds you think are somehow real and not imaginary.

We told you -- operating according to a set of mathematical rules.

A blueprint is not operating, first of all, so right off the bat it obviously isn't any kind of world.

A more formal term would be "changing from state to state" instead of "operating."

 

[rocketdodger]

In RD's case, it seems to be related to a philosophical notion that, because we can access the subatomic world only by gleaning information about interactions of stuff that we can't access directly, then it must be non-stuff with no qualities, and the interactions must be all that's real. (All syntax, no semantics.)

From there, it is apparently deduced that information about interactions (syntax) alone is enough to produce a "real world"... because, hey, it produces our world!

This much is spot on. However I would add that it isn't just that we can't access the subatomic world directly, it is that all we know about the subatomic world points to it being nothing but such information.

Everything else you said in that post I wouldn't agree with.

 

[Piggy]

I just think we're broadening the definitions of those words to the point of making them nonsensical and useless.

Then let's have a better one.

I've already told you. Performing algorithms and calculations is a good start, but we already know what happened with those words, here.

All physical systems can be described in terms of inputs, rule-based transformations, and outputs.

This includes brains and computers.

If you want to talk about something like what happens when a conscious human sits down with a pencil and adds numbers, there's no basis for claiming that a computer is doing something similar when it displays the pattern of pixels "5" on a monitor after a human presses "2 + 3 = Enter" on a keyboard.

If you want to compare the two processes for equivalence, be my guest.

 

[Piggy]

We told you -- operating according to a set of mathematical rules.

A blueprint is not operating, first of all, so right off the bat it obviously isn't any kind of world.

A more formal term would be "changing from state to state" instead of "operating."

But what is changing from state to state? I mean, really?

The computer is changing from state to state.

The computer is physically real.

Those states are, of course, related to outputs which cause an observer to imagine something like a river system or tornado or epidemic. And that state of imagination is real, too.

Yet the coherence of the math involved in the representation has no way of creating any actual frame of reference beyond these two.

The changing states of the computer are only related to changing states of rivers or tornadoes or epidemics symbolically, since the computer does not exhibit the qualities of those systems.

 

[Piggy]

"Real" in which frame of reference ?

The only "real" frame of reference we have -- the world of matter and energy.

There is also an imaginary frame of reference, for instance if I imagine my cat sitting in a chair when she' really on the sofa.

There are no other frames of reference available besides the physical universe and our imaginations.

 

[westprog]

I just think we're broadening the definitions of those words to the point of making them nonsensical and useless.

Broadening them from what? There's a perfectly good utilitarian definition of a computer, if we consider it a tool. It only becomes a problem if we consider it as something thinking for itself.

What's a Whammo Super Spy Decoder Ring, and where can I find one ?



I've already told you. Performing algorithms and calculations is a good start, but we already know what happened with those words, here.

"Performing algorithms and calculations" is only meaningful if the computer is performing the calculations for someone.

 

[westprog]

I'm not asking whether you can program an algorithm that can predict how the ocean behaves or if it changes state. I'm asking you how oceans PERFORM algorithms.

By changing their state. Exactly as a computer does it. Of course the ocean's change of state is entirely useless and meaningless. So is a computer's change of state without interpretation by a person.