Explain consciousness to the layman.

[Frank Newgent]

Not sure what you mean by circular exactly.

from your own earlier link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_(formal)

"Symbols of a formal language need not be symbols of anything."​

"Formal symbols on the other hand are purely syntactic entities with no necessary association. However, in formal semantics, one attempts to construct models or interpretations based on higher-order logics like lambda calculus that provide an interpretation for the symbol in terms of what sets variables may belong to (first-order semantics, e.g. Montague grammar), or in terms of possible worlds where a statement may be true (modal logic semantics, e.g. Kripke semantics. However, these interpretations are themselves defined in terms of other formal (and therefore syntactic) symbols, and are not grounded in entities outside the formal system; hence they can be challenged as a case of circular definition."

 

[yy2bggggs]

from your own earlier link:

"Formal symbols on the other hand are purely syntactic entities with no necessary association. However, in formal semantics, one attempts to construct models or interpretations based on higher-order logics like lambda calculus that provide an interpretation for the symbol in terms of what sets variables may belong to (first-order semantics, e.g. Montague grammar), or in terms of possible worlds where a statement may be true (modal logic semantics, e.g. Kripke semantics. However, these interpretations are themselves defined in terms of other formal (and therefore syntactic) symbols, and are not grounded in entities outside the formal system; hence they can be challenged as a case of circular definition."

Okay, sure. So your original question:

Assuming consciousness has content where/when/how do the formal symbols generate representational content?

...and your contrarian answer:

Thanks for this answer. My simple contrarian reply is: how is this not all merely circular?

There is nothing external to the setup you describe far as I can tell.

In the wiki article snippet, there's no input into this machine. So we start with symbols that have no particular meaning. The only other thing that gives them any sort of meaning is simply that some tokens are the same symbols as each other, that others are different, and that you have a particular set of transformations.

In this case, when a new symbol is produced by a couple of old symbols, the new symbol refers to the particular values of the old symbols. And that's it. It won't tell you anything about an external world or meaning unless those initial symbols were "rigged" to do so (in which case, they rightfully qualify as a single input); or, if you could externally judge the value somehow (which does involve your judgments).

Basically, for the system to relate to the external world on its own, information from the external world needs to flow in.

 

[Leumas]

I'm beginning to agree with you on some of the "faith" aspects of computational literalism.

I mean, it doesn't seem to bother the comp.lits that science has moved on and nobody studying the brain is working in that framework.

Or that their claims require violations of the laws of physics.

Or that their claims inevitably lead to a host of absurd conclusions (e.g. a brain made of rope could be conscious, or consciousness could be created by writing out the equations describing the brain's operations).

Or that their claims contradict direct observation.

Or that many of their views are based on philosophy which hasn't been verified against reality... and apparently, in their opinion, need not be.

Exactly......


Here is another example of THEISTIC tomfoolery.....

That's what I just said. Please pay attention.

I'm not saying that the only models for consciousness are computation and magic. I'm saying the only models for consciousness presented in this thread are computation and magic.

If I've missed something, feel free to point it out.

 

[Leumas]

If I've missed something, feel free to point it out.

Well.... here it is......

I'm not saying that the only models for consciousness are computation and magic. I'm saying the only models for consciousness presented in this thread are computation and magic.

That IS a false dichotomy..... Let me see if I can explain it in terms you can fathom.

You are claiming that all the opinions in all the posts throughout this lengthy thread are only of TWO models....... this is called a DICHOTOMY..... look up the word in a dictionary sometime.

Also....since it is not true that there are only two views presented in the thread.....then your assertion is FALSE....... look up the word false too in a dictionary while you are at it.

If you are saying that there are many views but they all fit in either of the two categories of your devising then AGAIN that is a false dichotomy.

So you see whichever way you look at your assertion it is a FALSE DICHOTOMY logical fallacy....... in case you do not know what that is… here is a definition for you.



Here are the definitions of the words.... maybe that will make it easy for you.....

Dichotomy

A dichotomy is any splitting of a whole into exactly two non-overlapping parts, meaning it is a procedure in which a whole is divided into two parts, or in half. It is a partition of a whole (or a set) into two parts (subsets) that are:

• jointly exhaustive: everything must belong to one part or the other, and
• mutually exclusive: nothing can belong simultaneously to both parts.

False ..... the unhighlighted definitions below might be appropriate too

1. Contrary to fact or truth: false tales of bravery.
2. Deliberately untrue: delivered false testimony under oath.
3. Arising from mistaken ideas: false hopes of writing a successful novel.
4. Intentionally deceptive: a suitcase with a false bottom; false promises.
5. Not keeping faith; treacherous: a false friend. See Synonyms at faithless.
6. Not genuine or real: false teeth; false documents.
7. Erected temporarily, as for support during construction.
8. Resembling but not accurately or properly designated as such: a false thaw in January; the false dawn peculiar to the tropics.
9. Music Of incorrect pitch.
10. Unwise; imprudent: Don't make a false move or I'll shoot.
11. Computer Science Indicating one of two possible values taken by a variable in Boolean logic or a binary device.
adv.
In a treacherous or faithless manner: play a person false.

 

[westprog]

False dichotomy

Also just false. And pointless. At certain times in scientific history, there hasn't been enough knowledge to formulate a correct theory for a particular phenomenon, even as an unproven guess. That doesn't mean that they were correct to think that four elements, or phlogiston, or whatever they could come up with, were necessarily correct. It meant that they didn't know.

 

[westprog]

Thanks for this answer. My simple contrarian reply is: how is this not all merely circular?

There is nothing external to the setup you describe far as I can tell.

The transformations are also symbols.

 

[PixyMisa]

Exactly......

Here is another example of THEISTIC tomfoolery.....

I notice that what you didn't do is point out where I am wrong.

Well.... here it is......

That IS a false dichotomy.

So you claim.

Let me see if I can explain it in terms you can fathom.

I know what a false dichotomy is, thank you very much.

You are claiming that I have presented one. Where's your evidence?

Also....since it is not true that there are only two views presented in the thread.....then your assertion is FALSE....... look up the word false too in a dictionary while you are at it.

Non-sequitur. "Magic" represents a category of views, not one specific view.

Show me a model that's been presented in this thread that (a) isn't computational and (b) doesn't rely on false premises or logical contradictions. Then I'll gladly allow an exception.

So far you're long on the ad homs and short on argument.

 

[PixyMisa]

Also just false.

And yet there is a complete absence of counter-examples.

And pointless.

It's a rather neat summation of the argument to me. The computational side is supported by multiple bodies of evidence. The other side - the magic bean side - is supported by ignorance, confusion, and logical fallacies.

At certain times in scientific history, there hasn't been enough knowledge to formulate a correct theory for a particular phenomenon, even as an unproven guess. That doesn't mean that they were correct to think that four elements, or phlogiston, or whatever they could come up with, were necessarily correct. It meant that they didn't know.

The computational approach is specific, explains our observations, is not contradicted by any observation, and is readily falsifiable.

That you can't even come up with a coherent objection is not my problem.

 

[Leumas]

Non-sequitur. "Magic" represents a category of views, not one specific view.

I noticed from the way you replied that you kept asking a question and as you read further in the post you were replying to you found the answer to your question which apparently you wrote down as you went through without actually having read the whole post before writing down your responses.

You will find the response to the above part of your post in the following part of my post that you were responding to and which you seem to have either deliberately neglected or you did not manage to notice in your haphazard and piecemeal reading style.

If you are saying that there are many views but they all fit in either of the two categories of your devising then AGAIN that is a false dichotomy.

So you see whichever way you look at your assertion it is a FALSE DICHOTOMY logical fallacy....... in case you do not know what that is… here is a definition for you.

As for your request

Show me a model that's been presented in this thread that (a) isn't computational and (b) doesn't rely on false premises or logical contradictions. Then I'll gladly allow an exception.

Accordingly....as evinced by the erratic and piecemeal way you seem to be reading posts I advice you in response, to actually go READ the posts…… you know….actually read them and try to understand them.

If you still insist that they are relying on false premises and contradictions then you sir are the one who is

long on the ad homs and short on argument.

Besides....even if an opinion relies on "false premises and logical contradictions" it still does not make it magical. Which brings us back to the False Dichotomy of yours.

 

[punshhh]

Happy to address the subjective, if you have meaningful questions to ask.

Well consciousness if you think about it is entirely subjective. Would a digital consciousness exhibit subjective consideration of its environment.

A computer could make just as much sense in such a discussion as a human.
Of course, "just as much" here equates to "none at all", but that's not really a problem.

What this computer is regurgitating is referencing establish academic categories of artistic movements. These categories can be given a clear definition which can be encoded and spewed out by an adding machine.

I was asking about a dynamic in the present subjective sensitivity as you get when a group of thinkers sit around and discuss art.

That's not a conclusion, that's an assertion.

Consciousness is defined and understood as an attribute of life forms. Why would it be associated with automatons?

Also, "silicone"?

Whoops, I use silicone sealant.

Anyway, why is a finely-engineered machine of wire and silicon less likely to be conscious than two pounds of warm meat?

I expect that in the next century a "finely-engineered machine of wire and silicon" will be produced which will be conscious.

This is a replica of the conscious brain. What I am questioning is that a simulation of consciousness will be conscious.

A simulation is a mirage, nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

More specifically a simulated entity is a puppet, its life like behavior is as a result of strings being pulled and released in sequence.

We have a life like being which appears to be conscious, while the truth of the situation is that the characteristics making it appear life like are assembled on a stage/screen, by a group of programs manipulating the imputs of the screen in such a way as to produce a mirage of consciousness

On the contrary, it is exceptionally well-founded. However, if you wish to dispute the point, go ahead: Name a behaviour we attribute to consciousness that is not computational in nature. (And that actually happens, please.)

Have you ever had that experience where you turn in a crowded room and some one at the other side of the room does the same and you both look deeply into each others eyes for an instant and you don't know why it happened? Its happened to me at least 50 times.

What are you blithering about, punshhh? It was your hypothetical that the brain was made to function again via advanced technology.

Frankenstein applied electrodes to the brains of dead people, which came back to life.

Either the brain is functioning as before - which is the point of your hypothetical - in which case it is conscious just as it was before by definition. Or it isn't functioning as before, in which case, whatever.

I don't expect a brain to come back to life, only that the neuronal computation can be exercised.

Evidence?

Humanity has not yet explained the process of existence, or has it?

The zeitgeist has enough problems to deal with, leave the poor thing alone!

I'm glad its not conscious.

 

[punshhh]

The truth is that two approaches have been put forward: The computational approach, and magic beans. Anyone is free to put forward an alternative to the computational approach that makes sense. No-one has done so.

This is not my problem.

Frankly this is laughable, I expect you to retreat into the rubicon shortly.


What about the biological approach, the neurological approach, the anthropological approach etc...?

Might I remind you of what I said when I joined the thread near the beginning. That from the one example we have of consciousness, it appears that it is a quality or characteristic of life.

When the most primitive life forms began to evolve on this planet, what enabled them to persist and develop was an intelligent awareness of themselves and their environment and where the boundary between the two lies and to capitalise on this awareness.

The rest is biological history and we humans with our high falutin self consciousness are just the cherry on the top, the last step in this long and distinguished inheritance.

 

[PixyMisa]

Well consciousness if you think about it is entirely subjective. Would a digital consciousness exhibit subjective consideration of its environment.

Sure.

What this computer is regurgitating is referencing establish academic categories of artistic movements. These categories can be given a clear definition which can be encoded and spewed out by an adding machine.

And how is what humans do any different?

I was asking about a dynamic in the present subjective sensitivity as you get when a group of thinkers sit around and discuss art.

You get twaddle indistinguishable from what I posted.

Consciousness is defined and understood as an attribute of life forms.

No. It's a behaviour of life forms possessing a certain level of computational ability.

Why would it be associated with automatons?

Because life is a red herring.

I expect that in the next century a "finely-engineered machine of wire and silicon" will be produced which will be conscious.

Well, sure. Since it's been done for decades.

A simulation is a mirage, nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

Completely wrong. A simulation is a model.

More specifically a simulated entity is a puppet, its life like behavior is as a result of strings being pulled and released in sequence.

To precisely the same degree that this is true of you.

We have a life like being which appears to be conscious, while the truth of the situation is that the characteristics making it appear life like are assembled on a stage/screen, by a group of programs manipulating the imputs of the screen in such a way as to produce a mirage of consciousness

Consciousness is an illusion in the first place, so what's the difference, and what is your evidence for this?

Have you ever had that experience where you turn in a crowded room and some one at the other side of the room does the same and you both look deeply into each others eyes for an instant and you don't know why it happened? Its happened to me at least 50 times.

Nope. I've done all that except the "you don't know why it happened" part, though.

Frankenstein applied electrodes to the brains of dead people, which came back to life.

No.

I don't expect a brain to come back to life, only that the neuronal computation can be exercised.

Can't do that with a dead brain. Dead is dead. If you got the brain working again, it would be alive.

Humanity has not yet explained the process of existence, or has it?

See what I said before about meaningful questions.

 

[PixyMisa]

Frankly this is laughable, I expect you to retreat into the rubicon shortly.

That didn't mean anything the first time you said it.

What about the biological approach, the neurological approach, the anthropological approach etc...?

What about them?

Might I remind you of what I said when I joined the thread near the beginning. That from the one example we have of consciousness, it appears that it is a quality or characteristic of life.

No.

When the most primitive life forms began to evolve on this planet, what enabled them to persist and develop was an intelligent awareness of themselves and their environment and where the boundary between the two lies and to capitalise on this awareness.

No.

 

[epepke]

Consciousness is that which I'm now turning off the computer so that I can give it up for a few hours.

 

[Frank Newgent]

from your own earlier link:

"Formal symbols on the other hand are purely syntactic entities with no necessary association. However, in formal semantics, one attempts to construct models or interpretations based on higher-order logics like lambda calculus that provide an interpretation for the symbol in terms of what sets variables may belong to (first-order semantics, e.g. Montague grammar), or in terms of possible worlds where a statement may be true (modal logic semantics, e.g. Kripke semantics. However, these interpretations are themselves defined in terms of other formal (and therefore syntactic) symbols, and are not grounded in entities outside the formal system; hence they can be challenged as a case of circular definition."

Okay, sure. So your original question:

Assuming consciousness has content where/when/how do the formal symbols generate representational content?

...and your contrarian answer:

Thanks for this answer. My simple contrarian reply is: how is this not all merely circular?

There is nothing external to the setup you describe far as I can tell.

In the wiki article snippet, there's no input into this machine. So we start with symbols that have no particular meaning. The only other thing that gives them any sort of meaning is simply that some tokens are the same symbols as each other, that others are different, and that you have a particular set of transformations.

In this case, when a new symbol is produced by a couple of old symbols, the new symbol refers to the particular values of the old symbols. And that's it. It won't tell you anything about an external world or meaning unless those initial symbols were "rigged" to do so (in which case, they rightfully qualify as a single input); or, if you could externally judge the value somehow (which does involve your judgments).

Basically, for the system to relate to the external world on its own, information from the external world needs to flow in.

That's pretty much what I was getting to. How can that happen computationally?

 

[yy2bggggs]

That's pretty much what I was getting to. How can that happen computationally?

How can what happen computationally?

ETA: As a guess, are you talking about how inputs can happen computationally? If so, that's not part of the computational model of the mind, but was discussed earlier in the thread (don't recall who exactly brought it up). The answer is the same--there needs to be input from an external world. It's just that in this case, the external world is computational--they're using a simulation. There's a part of the simulation that refers to another part.

For comparison, there does exist a computational model of the universe, where you consider the entire universe to work like a computer. Under this model, we would be computational in nature, and would be able to refer to things external to us. One slight detail--generally speaking, in the computational model of the universe, we may be speaking of two different systems anyway (specifically, two different sets of symbols--one would simply be produced as a layer on top of another).

 

[punshhh]

Well, consciousness itself is an internal process, but it doesn't do a whole lot without sensory input. People undergoing sensory deprivation tend to drift in an out of consciousness; the brain seems to need stimulation to keep it fully ticking over.

I have meditated for a few hours in which I have stilled the mind to the extent that it is essentially inactive, and hours seem to pass in minutes. While remaining fully conscious and attentive throughout. The consciousness was not diminished by sensory deprivation and was on occasion enhanced due to a release from the mental tread mill.

 

[punshhh]

Sure.

How about the sense of wonder invoked by Carl Sagan's Blue dot.

And how is what humans do any different?

You should indulge yourself in some artistic appreciation. Connoisseurs of art refer to established and defined subjective convention only as initial reference points. The subjective is a fluid inspirational creation. Ah now, there's a word I haven't seen much on these boards, Creativity.

You get twaddle indistinguishable from what I posted.

You get to live a life, share a life for a fleeting moment.

Because life is a red herring.

So consciousness is not a living phenomena? Their apparent relatedness is coincidental perhaps.

Completely wrong. A simulation is a model.

And where does this model reside? of what is it made?

Consciousness is an illusion in the first place, so what's the difference, and what is your evidence for this?

Consciousness is a mirage?

Nope. I've done all that except the "you don't know why it happened" part, though.

What part did computation play?

Can't do that with a dead brain. Dead is dead. If you got the brain working again, it would be alive.

Perhaps if it was a brain transplant, I wonder who the person would be? the donor or the patient.

 

[punshhh]

Here's a particular model.

Thanks for the link, a nice peek into the world of neural networks.

 

[westprog]

How can what happen computationally?

How can a new symbol be produced? I can see how symbols already in the system can be aggregated and duplicated.