Explain consciousness to the layman.

[Belz...]

I am sorry..... maybe I am too cynically going by the adage "once bitten twice shy", and coming from your quarter it has been more than once.

I'd still like to know what you think, mind you.

 

[Belz...]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_512824ef5162a06a0d.jpg[/qimg]

I'm interested in this, too: why do you think an amoeba is more conscious than a computer ?

Would you mind starting by defining what you mean by "conscious" ?

By that definition DNA and genes are INDIVIDUALLY conscious.

How do they even remotely fit the definition ?

 

[Leumas]

You cant reach him Leumas, he's entwined in a marvelous chrysalis. Any approach glances off the crystalline circular surface.

Like the lady of Shallot, from his ivory tower he doesn't realise that inside he's just a bug like the rest of us (or should I say grub).


Bug in a rug.

Conscious bug in a rug.

You are quite right..... much like trying to convince DOC or Jude Brando et al that a god who orders the killing of entire cities and himself carries out acts of vengeance against children is not a god worthy of the definition.

Try as you might to explain to William Craig that it is wrong to think that way, you are doomed to failure because his "reality" is quite distinct from the actual reality of this world and his wishful thinking will never allow him to see it.

 

[PixyMisa]

You are quite right..... much like trying to convince DOC or Jude Brando et al that a god who orders the killing of entire cities and himself carries out acts of vengeance against children is not a god worthy of the definition.

Try as you might to explain to William Craig that it is wrong to think that way, you are doomed to failure because his "reality" is quite distinct from the actual reality of this world and his wishful thinking will never allow him to see it.

Nice excuse.

All you have to do is state your reasons. Simple.

All you are doing is ranting. Unhelpful.

 

[!Kaggen]

I don't see a reason why it should. Is the complexity of individual atoms important ?

For example, in terms of data storage, what matters is the actual information beign stored, be it on paper, in bytes, etc. The atomic composition of the information is irrelevant.



Perhaps. I'd like to see a good argument for the reverse, however.

No, I said the chemical compounds behavior.
You ever done chemistry or biochemistry?
There are innumerable reactions taking place in a cell, many we do not even know yet. This is the complexity I am talking about. These are all essential for the functionality of the cell and contribute to its overall function.

 

[PixyMisa]

No, I said the chemical compounds behavior.
You ever done chemistry or biochemistry?
There are innumerable reactions taking place in a cell, many we do not even know yet. This is the complexity I am talking about. These are all essential for the functionality of the cell and contribute to its overall function.

The question is, what is the relevant level of behaviour: What the neuron does, or how it does it?

Since it's perfectly possible to replicate the function of a neuron with none of those chemical processes, we say it's what the neuron does that matters.

 

[Leumas]

The question is, what is the relevant level of behaviour: What the neuron does, or how it does it?

Since it's perfectly possible to replicate the function of a neuron with none of those chemical processes, we say it's what the neuron does that matters.

In a Neural Net this is done on a VERY SIMPLISTIC LEVEL by the use of a FEW OpAmps and some electrical components (e.g. resistors) to create the required Transfer Function of the ARTIFICIAL Neuron.

This is what a simple OpAmp is made of and we would need a few of these to simplistically replicate SOME of what we THINK is the functionality of a real neuron..... notice the number of transistors in there.

 

[westprog]

Goodness gracious me..... so you do in fact believe that consciousness has already been achieved by computer programs.

Told you. I don't think people generally realise just how extreme the computationalist position is. To join up, you have to be ready to take a lot of stuff on faith.

 

[punshhh]

No, I said the chemical compounds behavior.
You ever done chemistry or biochemistry?
There are innumerable reactions taking place in a cell, many we do not even know yet. This is the complexity I am talking about. These are all essential for the functionality of the cell and contribute to its overall function.

Precisely, the knowledge of just how the biology of the brain generates consciousness as we know it is a long way off. With I presume a number of scientific breakthroughs in the understanding of chemical life in the meantime.

Also I would not be in the least surprised if a number of discoveries regarding the brain waves Piggy refers to will be required. Or even something equating to what is commonly known as the aura of the body.

 

[PixyMisa]

In a Neural Net this is done on a VERY SIMPLISTIC LEVEL by the use of a FEW OpAmps and some electrical components (e.g. resistors) to create the required Transfer Function of the ARTIFICIAL Neuron.

Sure. There are other approaches, but they'd be of similar complexity.

This is what a simple OpAmp is made of and we would need a few of these to simplistically replicate SOME of what we THINK is the functionality of a real neuron..... notice the number of transistors in there.

Sure. Note that we can actually measure and test the functionality of a real neuron; this is not guesswork.

 

[PixyMisa]

Precisely, the knowledge of just how the biology of the brain generates consciousness as we know it is a long way off. With I presume a number of scientific breakthroughs in the understanding of chemical life in the meantime.

What reason do you have for thinking that such a breakthrough is required?

We know how neurons work. We know how they signal each other, how they combine to perform complex computations. There is certainly a lot more detail to be understood about the brain's operation, but that's at a higher level, not at a lower level.

Also I would not be in the least surprised if a number of discoveries regarding the brain waves Piggy refers to will be required.

No, that's impossible.

See the details I posted earlier, showing that brain waves are on the order of a trillion times too weak to have the proposed effect.

Or even something equating to what is commonly known as the aura of the body.

No, that doesn't exist.

 

[PixyMisa]

Told you. I don't think people generally realise just how extreme the computationalist position is. To join up, you have to be ready to take a lot of stuff on faith.

What, precisely, needs to be taken on faith?

 

[Leumas]

Told you. I don't think people generally realise just how extreme the computationalist position is. To join up, you have to be ready to take a lot of stuff on faith.

Not just that..... notice his replies to my question to him about why no one has yet been awarded a Nobel prize for the earth shattering event of when this was first achieved.

By the way….. where is the Nobel Prize that you have been awarded for writing the first conscious computer program as you claim here

There's no Nobel Prize in computer science, and I'm not remotely the first to do such a thing.

Or if you are just one of many, who then is the person that won the prize for being the first person ever to create consciousness in a computer. I am sure the event would have been hailed all over the scientific community let alone the theology and philosophy departments of every university in the world and pretty much every newspaper and talk show and media outlet on earth.

No you're just babbling.

Please show me evidence of peer reviewed scientific publications claiming to have created consciousness in a manmade machine of any kind.

Start here. Don't know exactly which ones to recommend, but I'd say start with anything by Hofstadter, and then read everything he references.

I am sure the event would be on par with the invention of the atomic bomb or the invention of the plane at the very least in drawing accolades and media spotlights.

Why do you think that?

I keep asking, and I keep getting non-answers.

Why hasn’t anyone heard about it? Is it a conspiracy to not alarm the simple minded hordes? Why hasn’t the Nobel committee not been alerted. Judging by the ease with which they give out peace prizes to warmongers I am sure their standards would be quite lax and you PixyMisa might win a Nobel prize for the programs you created that have fooled you into thinking that they are conscious.

It's a standard programming technique found everywhere. No-one gives prizes for that.

 

[PixyMisa]

Not just that..... notice his replies to my question to him about why no one has yet been awarded a Nobel prize for the earth shattering event of when this was first achieved.

You still haven't explained why you think that this is in any way remarkable.

 

[!Kaggen]

The question is, what is the relevant level of behaviour: What the neuron does, or how it does it?

I thought semantics is syntax?

Since it's perfectly possible to replicate the function of a neuron with none of those chemical processes, we say it's what the neuron does that matters.

Not when what the neuron does is the same thing as how the neuron does it.

 

[PixyMisa]

I thought semantics is syntax?

Indeed it is.

Not when what the neuron does is the same thing as how the neuron does it.

Where did that premise come from?

 

[Leumas]

You still haven't explained why you think that this is in any way remarkable.

If you don't know then nothing and no one can explain it to you.


If you in anyway understand what science is and how many scientists are currently working on this subject you would have your answer. The fact that you have to ask is quite telling.

 

[Belz...]

No, I said the chemical compounds behavior.

I didn't say you had. I asked you a question.

There are innumerable reactions taking place in a cell, many we do not even know yet. This is the complexity I am talking about. These are all essential for the functionality of the cell and contribute to its overall function.

Assuming we build a circuit board made out of cars, I'm not sure whether the cars run on gasoline or not is important so, again, why do you think it matters ?

 

[PixyMisa]

If you don't know then nothing and no one can explain it to you.

Well, you certainly can't if you refuse to even make the attempt.

If you in anyway understand what science is and how many scientists are currently working on this subject you would have your answer.

Really? Since I do understand what science is, and I have some idea how many scientists are currently working on this subject, and I have no idea what you are talking about, your assertion seems to have a great big hole in it.

The fact that you have to ask is quite telling.

Yes, it is. The fact that you are unable to answer is even more telling.

 

[punshhh]

What reason do you have for thinking that such a breakthrough is required?

I have seen little mentioned here which addresses the phenomena of consciousness from those claiming a computer can be conscious. You claim that it is due to a kind of computation and yet you do not know what other bodily functions may contribute to it.

We know how neurons work. We know how they signal each other, how they combine to perform complex computations. There is certainly a lot more detail to be understood about the brain's operation, but that's at a higher level, not at a lower level.

We know one thing that neurons do and that is primarily to do with processing impulses. This doesn't necessarily have anything to do with consciousness, it may be nothing more than the tool used by consciousness to manifest subjective self.

No, that's impossible.

See the details I posted earlier, showing that brain waves are on the order of a trillion times too weak to have the proposed effect.

Yes I read that and I can imagine many ways in which such waves in the body may have effects and be an integral manifestation of a being.

No, that doesn't exist.

Don't you mean to say it or something approximating it has not been detected as yet?

Remember the unknown unknowns.