Explain consciousness to the layman.

[Piggy]

But correlation is not causation. It doesn't matter how much you want the correlation to be causative, it most likely ain't. In this case we already have a dang good idea of what's causing the correlation: the same neural structures doing the thinking are making the waves. I can see how you might get turned around by the language used by some papers, but you need to read a little more critically to see that they're talking about the physical structures acting at those frequencies, not the electromagnetic waves their actions generate.

You're right, correlation is not causation.

We know that the signature waves are correlates of consciousness, but no one would claim that any hypothesis regarding their potential role would be anything but that... a speculative hypothesis to test.

The point of making that speculation here is simply to demonstrate that the biological model actually does produce testable hypotheses... and in fact, the discovery of these correlates is the result of that process.

The computational model (such as it is) is making no such progress.

And yes, the neural structures doing the thinking are making the waves. No one doubts that. Where else would they come from? God?

But thanks for the link, I'll check it out.

Anyway, I want to be clear that I am not by any means proposing that the idea about brain waves interacting with neural noise is accurate. That would be ridiculous.

However, it doesn't matter if that notion is false or not.

(I also think the IIT has some serious problems, btw.)

What matters is what the biologial approach reveals about consciousness, how biological research clearly debunks computational literalism, and how it's part of a genuine scientific process that makes real progress and allows for testable theories.

 

[westprog]

Let's get back to the question. I don't know why we're getting so sidetracked:

How does it feel like to have an experience ? Can you put that into writing or not ?

You just ignored my explanation of why you can't put it into writing, and why that doesn't matter - indeed, is an essential element of language - and expressed that as "getting sidetracked".

If you can't see the limitations of language where every word is defined in terms of other words, I don't know what else I can do to explain it to you.

 

[Piggy]

Have you ever managed to think using logs?

Special pleading for the brain, eh?

It's not like every other physical object in the world, right?

Good luck with that.

 

[Piggy]

Science doesn't know so it must be magic brain waves.

Nope.

Science doesn't know, so we don't know. End of story.

I've never read any claims by anyone who asserts that any test has been done which describes the actual role (if any) of the signature waves in the actual generation of experience.

We do know that the signature brain waves are correlates of consciousness.

And this is a wonderful and stunning discovery. It's progress. It means we have another toe-hold in the investigation.

But as to the claim that we can disregard neural "noise" in the brain when it comes to consciousness, it simply is not true that this notion has been "tested" and rejected.

Here's why....

In order to test the influence of neural noise on conscious experience, we'd have to rig a subject to a machine that stops the noise in various areas of the brain, and see what (if anything) happens to that person's experience.

But the only way to do that is to alter the neural activity that's causing the noise (like stopping the electrical noise from power lines by killing the power).

But we already know that shutting down the neural activity would cause conscious blind spots.

To actually test the noise specifically, we'd have to find some way of eliminating it while keeping the neurons running, and there's no way to do that.

 

[Piggy]

First, your premise is false. Second, the tests have been done. Brain waves aren't involved. There are multiple insurmountable problems with your position, which have been pointed out to you repeatedly, and which you haven't even attempted to address.

Please describe these tests. I really would be interested in them.

And a short bullet list of the problems would be nice.

(Btw, please don't include "brain waves aren't strong enough to influence the way neurons communicate with each other" because no one is making any claim that they are.)

I'd also be interested in hearing your theory on why the brain waves do correlate with conscious experience, to the extent that we can use observations of the waves to distinguish a fully awake person from a person who's dead asleep, or waking up, or falling asleep, or going under anesthesia... and how that theory makes computational literalism more likely than the biologial model... and how that theory implies that these signature waves are an unimportant discovery that wont' lead to any further discoveries.

Thanks.

 

[PixyMisa]

How does it feel like to have an experience ? Can you put that into writing or not ?

Whether Westprog can or not, the state of my shelves indicates that there are plenty of people who can.

 

[Piggy]

The correlations are real. Your conclusion, however, is baloney.

Yes, the speculation, like all hypotheses, is more likely to be false than true.

 

[Piggy]

An mp3 player running at one millionth speed still plays exactly the same music - just at one millionth speed. A plane-flying-program "flying" at one millionth speed in a simulation running at one millionth speed would fly perfectly well.

Two points....

One, we're talking about planes, not sims of planes. Remember, the computational literalists claim that consciousness is the result of logical computation alone! Which means that the brain could be slowed down to an arbitrary speed and still be conscious.

Which we know is false, because it's been proven in the lab.

It's like saying you can run a plane engine at any speed and still fly.

Two, try your music experiment with a CD player, and see if your laser works.

 

[Leumas]

Actually, it's that misunderstanding that I was objecting to. Sorry I wasn't clear about that.

I haven't seen anyone make the claim on this thread, but in others I've heard folks claim that there is some threshold of neural activity which, by sheer volume, reaches a critical mass which causes consciousness to emerge.

That idea, of course, has been disproven, since we know consciousness is not correlated with the sheer volume of neural activity in the brain.

Ah.... I misunderstood... sorry.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

If you can't see the limitations of language where every word is defined in terms of other words, I don't know what else I can do to explain it to you.

Well, you can always try painting.

 

[yy2bggggs]

Westprog:

We're discussing whether or not consciousness can be produced, not whether a person can fly planes. The only effect on consciousness should simply be that you cannot interact with the environment that way.

One can imagine an argument that conscious people must be quick enough to actually catch tennis balls. This would have a profound breakthrough in theory of mind; if you're too slow to catch a tennis ball, you must not be conscious, and therefore must just be a machine.

Your V8 is broken if it cannot cause a spark when the piston is compressed. But if I have slow reflexes, I'm still conscious.

I simply can't catch tennis balls.

 

[Piggy]

Forget simulations. The claim that consciousness requires a certain rate simply violates relativity.

You need to read more biology.

 

[PixyMisa]

You just ignored my explanation of why you can't put it into writing, and why that doesn't matter - indeed, is an essential element of language - and expressed that as "getting sidetracked".

If you can't see the limitations of language where every word is defined in terms of other words, I don't know what else I can do to explain it to you.

What a strange language it is they speak in your world, and no wonder you have so much trouble communicating with people in ours.

 

[Piggy]

I've seen this particular claim before, and I find it quite staggering. If relativity means that there are no time constraints on the operation of the brain, then we can extend the principle to the whole of engineering. Don't worry about the timing on your V-8 - relativity, you know.

Piggy's Law: As any defense of incorrect ideas grows longer, the probability of an appeal to relativity or quantum mechanics approaches 1.

 

[yy2bggggs]

Regarding the planes, how silly! Some people are simply too slow to operate such machinery, yet they are obviously conscious, because they can catch tennis balls!

 

[Wowbagger]

While I agree with Dennett's MDT, I don't see it as an explanation of consciousness per se, but rather an explanation of one aspect of how consciousness works.

It's probably a pretty big aspect.

If by "artificial machine" you mean a "man-made machine" then yeah.

But if you think any machine part can be replaced by a computer simulation of that part -- except in some weird case where the simulator machine itself did the same work as the missing part -- then like I say, why not sail a computer simulation of a boat across the ocean?

Perhaps I should clarify that I am referring to an emulation, not a simulation.

What I am referring to is best outlined in this post: (although, I still used the word simulation in there)
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7965032#post7965032

This requires dualism, I'm afraid. (Which is why Westprog and I are so baffled when the computationalists call us dualists for believing that only physical computations are involved.)

Your usage of the term "dualism" baffles me. From my POV, you folks are trying to push a backdoor dualism, if you think there is something special about consciousness that cannot be emulated or simulated, in a computer, at all.
Perhaps we're using the words differently.

But in order for a symbol to exist, there must be some sort of object paired with someone who decides what it means and interprets that meaning. Which means, if consciousness is a symbol &/or the brain is a symbol system, you need a mind somewhere outside of the brain to decide what those symbols are and what they mean.

Not necessarily.

If we built a robot capable of consciousness, then all of a sudden every human on the planet died, that robot would still carry on its life as a conscious entity, even though there was no one else around to "interpret the meaning of its symbols". (Even if it only felt depressed and lonely.)

From my usage of terms, you would be introducing a form of dualism, if you argue this is somehow fundamentally impossible.

Computers that fly planes do so according to a real-time, interactive model, not the Turing computational model. A computer operating according to the Turing model would never be able to fly a plane, or play an MP3 file, or run a windowing system. This is the case no matter how powerful the computer.

I am not talking about the freakin' Turing stuff anymore!

(I still think you are wrong: A standard PC is based on the Turing model, and it can play MP3 files just fine! But, I am willing to put that aside for the sake of this thread's topic.)

Recall this post: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7965032#post7965032

 

[Leumas]

You need to read more biology.

Not to mention Physics because that argument shows a total lack of understanding what the theory of relativity is about.

 

[Piggy]

Westprog:

We're discussing whether or not consciousness can be produced, not whether a person can fly planes. The only effect on consciousness should simply be that you cannot interact with the environment that way.
One can imagine an argument that conscious people must be quick enough to actually catch tennis balls. This would have a profound breakthrough in theory of mind; if you're too slow to catch a tennis ball, you must not be conscious, and therefore must just be a machine.

Your V8 is broken if it cannot cause a spark when the piston is compressed. But if I have slow reflexes, I'm still conscious.

I simply can't catch tennis balls.

Consciousness does not depend on any interaction with an outside environment. It is not a way of interacting with the environment.

You seem to be resorting to behaviorism here.

And the time issue is directly relevant to the airplane analogy. Both planes and consciousness will "stall" if the timing is wrong. We know this because of observations of people undergoing absence siezures and anesthesia.

If the comp.lits were correct, and consciousness actually were the result of logical computations alone, your brain would always be conscious 24/7 til the day you die, because logical computations arrive at the same result regardless of the speed at which the computations are performed.

ETA: In fact, this is precisely what the comp.lits adamantly insist must be true of conscious machines. The fact that it is proven to be untrue of the only conscious machine that exists, well, this doesn't seem to phase them.

 

[Piggy]

Perhaps I should clarify that I am referring to an emulation, not a simulation.

What I am referring to is best outlined in this post: (although, I still used the word simulation in there)
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7965032#post7965032

Well, I have some reservations about that scenario, so let's make it simpler.

A replica of my truck is a physical object that acts exactly like my truck.

A simulation of my truck is created by causing an object that does not act like my truck to operate in such a way that I can read the output and deduce from that what my truck should act like.

Which are you talking about?

 

[westprog]

Westprog:

We're discussing whether or not consciousness can be produced, not whether a person can fly planes. The only effect on consciousness should simply be that you cannot interact with the environment that way.

One can imagine an argument that conscious people must be quick enough to actually catch tennis balls. This would have a profound breakthrough in theory of mind; if you're too slow to catch a tennis ball, you must not be conscious, and therefore must just be a machine.

Your V8 is broken if it cannot cause a spark when the piston is compressed. But if I have slow reflexes, I'm still conscious.

I simply can't catch tennis balls.

It's a very simple, obvious fact about the brain that it has control and monitoring functions which are time dependent. It falls into the realm of the blatantly obvious. I suppose that this very fundamental fact about the brain might not be an essential element of consciousness - but I don't see how something so basic could avoid being entangled. We are not simply conscious - we are conscious of the world we experience, and we experience it in real time, not remembered after the fact.

I will also concede that it is impossible to catch tennis balls flung at one at relativistic speeds. It would also be difficult to coordinate one's limbs if one flailed them at near-light velocity. If this gives you an "aha!" moment I'm glad for you.