Explain consciousness to the layman.

[Piggy]

Of course, mine has that advantage as well, and it's far more specific.

I could define "Paris" as "the nail on my left big toe" and that would be very specific.

So specificity is not necessarily an advantage.

And it is a clear disadvantage when it comes out of nowhere, in a field where all the experts agree no such specificity can be had.

You simply take some of what's known about non-conscious things and apply it arbitrarily to consciousness, and when that model is contradicted, you merely assert that the model is right and the resulting absurdities must therefore simply be true.

It's like studying car engines, developing a general "theory of transportation" which you believe explains everything, then applying it to airplanes, and when the results don't match reality, believing you've discovered hidden truths about the world.

 

[Piggy]

That is a more appealing definition for sure. It resonates with what most of us intuitively feel about consciousness. However, it is not a workable definition because it doesn't describe the "process".

That's actually not accurate.

Remember, there was a time when the northern lights were just "those colored lights you can see in the sky sometimes near the north pole".

There was no description of the process that caused the lights, but still it was a perfectly fine description so that folks could identify the lights and study them.

And the current definition of consciousness works just fine for the current science.

In fact, it's still perfectly workable even though we do indeed have a much more specific definition than we used to.

We can describe the various brain waves associated with different states of consciousness, and thanks to the very recent deep brain studies we can describe the behavior of the "signature waves" which indicate the presence and absence of consciousness.

We can describe various states of consciousness in terms of the 3 neural axes I described earlier (activity, focus, concentration) and their corresponding experiential qualities.

We can identify brainwide neural behavior associated with consciousness, such as the patterns of syncing of neural pulses during awareness and during absence seizures.

So we have a workable high-level description which allows us to study consciousness, and groups of indicators which allow us to determine when it is present and what mode it's in... in fact, this knowledge is now allowing us to determine the conscious states of "locked in" patients... but not yet any theory which connects the experience and the brain activity in a clearly explanatory way.

But we're making progress with the definition we have... which appears to be perfectly acceptable to hard-nosed neuroscientists, but problematic to philosophers with time on their hands.

 

[Leumas]

If the experts in the field disagree with you, simply conjure up your own definition to suit yourself.

Works every time.

What I want to know is did any of these scientists read GEB?

Why did they not come to the conclusions that it is fait accompli since GEB has already defined consciousness sufficiently rigorously to actually be able to write programs that are conscious and definitely be able to distinguish that fact?

Have they read Dennett and Hofstadter? If both Dennett and Hofstadter are in agreement that the problem is already solved as written in their books and that we are so sure as to be able to create conscious programs and actually definitely conclude that they are in fact conscious then why have the other scientist not just given up?

Why are there scores of universities still working on the problem with billions of research grants? Are they all conspiring to keep the funds coming?

If it is an oversight I would be quite surprised that Dennett and Hofstadter have not alerted them to the fact? Also why haven’t Dennett and Hofstadter been awarded the Nobel Prize for their astounding accomplishment?

If I were a scientist doing research on the issue the first thing I would do is read all the material available on the subject before I even entered a lab. At the very least I would have had as many research assistants as I could muster, do all the reading and give me a summary of all the salient points…. I wish I could have done that with GEB.

So if Pixy can read GEB and I don’t know what books of Dennett and conclude that he certainly knows sufficiently about the problem that he can confidently ascertain a conscious program having written many then why won’t these scientists come to the same conclusion?

Why do these scientist still insist that they do not even know how to define consciousness let alone actually program one on a computer?

Why doesn’t Pixy write a book and/or alert these scientists to his

This is precisely the problem I have addressed. I have offered a precise, consistent, operational definition of conscious, one that accounts at a basic level for every feature we ascribe to consciousness (and that is actually in evidence).

 

[Piggy]

My interpretation of his approach is that, having identified the fundamental basis of consciousness as self-referential information processing, and given the level of opinion that human consciousness is, or must be, more than that, he's prompting for suggestions as to what more is considered necessary.

But that's not his problem.

His problem is that "self-referential information processing" has not been identified as the fundamantal basis of consciousness.

To even speak of the brain as performing "information processing" is highly problematic, and the only viable definitions will also assert that stars and oceans are performing information processing.

Not only that, but even if we adopt an info-processing metaphor for the brain, we find slews of brain activity that is self-referential but which has no bearing on our experience.

So the problem, in a nutshell, is that if you take that definition and try to examine the only conscious object we know of, the brain, you find yourself at a loss even to make the basic distinctions that are necessary to do the research.

That's why it's inaccurate and unproductive.

 

[dlorde]

Up until recently it was believed that neurons did the real brain work….but it has now been all but conclusively established that what are referred to as glial cells (which apparently make up 90% of brain cells…as compared to the 10% comprised of neurons) also play a fundamental (though still little understood) role in brain ‘work’.

This isn't really new, it's been around a few years now.

 

[Piggy]

Order counts!

If you conjured up your own definition before you learned of how experts define the word then as long as you use your definition consistently, it is valid.

Valid where?

Look, I'm not interested in arguing abstract points of logic.

Our ideas have to be grounded in our observation of the real world. That's confirmation. And if an idea is disconfirmed by observation, the idea ain't "valid" in the real world.

PixyMisa's definition of consciousness isn't used by people who actually study consciousness, because it doesn't work.

If it did, they would use it.

But if you try to use that definition, you can't even design workable experiments.

Annoid's quotation is not an outlier... go read any text on cognitive neurobiology and you'll discover that no one claims that we have a workable theory yet.

I don't care if Pixy uses his definition consistently... that only makes him consistently wrong.

 

[Leumas]

If the other component is not meta-physical, then we are complex machines, and I accept your definition. A complex machine with a complex program appears to be sentient, and could even exhibit "feelings". Whether a machine is capable of "feelings" is difficult. It could be programmed to mimic feelings as if in response to hormones. Star Trek's Data seems to strive for "feelings".

Not at all.... there needs to be no metaphysical anything about it. It is not at all a dichotomy between the self-referential postulate and the metaphysical woo.... that is a false dichotomy.


There are many ways consciousness can arise that has nothing to do with meta anything.

Just because we are not sure YET does not mean that it has to be woo. But neither do we have to REDUCE it to a meaningless definition just to keep it from being ascribed as woo.

Saying we do not know is the EPITOME of SCIENCE..... when we do not know we say we do not know and we then proceed to conjecture and hypothesize RATIONAL and SCIENTIFIC ways to solve the problem.

Science then TESTS these hypotheses and peer reviews them and when something passes the rigors of scientific peer reviews and empirical tests and other such scientific procedure we say it is a THEORY and when new evidence comes in we modify and if the old theory seems to be utterly wrong we start again.

But we do not say that either the Moon is pushed in the sky by gods or it is propelled by a motor. And since we do not want to believe in the god part then we defend the postulate that it is propelled by a motor with as much zealotry as the ones who insist it is pushed by gods.

 

[PartSkeptic]

In short: The internet is structurally four or five orders of magnitude more complex than the human brain, and dynamically nine to twelve orders of magnitude more complex (there's more leeway in the dynamic model for differences of opinion). There's simply no contest: We're second best.

I am going to take back a comment of mine about the internet and it's intelligence and complexity. And it's lack of ability to replicate and repair itself. It is getting closer to achieving this.

I designed circuit boards for machines that cut down trees. It could process 2 foot diameter trees every 90 seconds - cut down, strip off branches to one side and length without knots to the other side. They had a computer that was tied into the internet. They would cut tree according to demand from end users such as a furniture maker placing an order. As the type of tree, and the diameter and the lengths were being cut, this information was fed into the network and affected the dispatch of trucks and the scheduling of ships.

Whole factories are run without human intervention, except for maintenance and orders.

We are closer to the SkyNet (that becomes self-aware) of Terminator than we would like to think. We are close to perfecting the infra-structure for machines to order raw material, transport it, process it, assemble it into machines and computers, and have these plugged into the net as another part of the machine. And the predator drones are getting better. Then there is no need for humans? But such machines would have no compassion unless programmed in, and I doubt they could discuss whether there is a God or not.

 

[Piggy]

I am going to take back a comment of mine about the internet and it's intelligence and complexity. And it's lack of ability to replicate and repair itself. It is getting closer to achieving this.

I designed circuit boards for machines that cut down trees. It could process 2 foot diameter trees every 90 seconds - cut down, strip off branches to one side and length without knots to the other side. They had a computer that was tied into the internet. They would cut tree according to demand from end users such as a furniture maker placing an order. As the type of tree, and the diameter and the lengths were being cut, this information was fed into the network and affected the dispatch of trucks and the scheduling of ships.

Whole factories are run without human intervention, except for maintenance and orders.

We are closer to the SkyNet (that becomes self-aware) of Terminator than we would like to think.

But wait....

How do you jump that enormous chasm between that last sentence and what came before it?

We know that complexity alone does not cause consciousness.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

PixyMisa's definition of consciousness isn't used by people who actually study consciousness, because it doesn't work.

PixyMisa's definition of consciousness isn't used by people who actually study consciousness, because people who use his definition don't see consciousness qua consciousness as being worthy of study. Those who do tend to gravitate to one or more magic bean theories.

 

[Leumas]

We are closer to the SkyNet (that becomes self-aware) of Terminator than we would like to think.

Unlike in the fantasy world of SciFi a world cannot exist inside a computer like in Tron nor are we close to having a SkyNet that will destroy us.... all we have to do is UNPLUG the machine.... and unlike Hollywood script writers, real engineers and scientists design things with SAFETY SWITCHES and with Dead-man Switches and KILL Switches.


As much as I love watching scifi films and as much as I love Isaac Asimov and Douglas Adams and Red Dwarf and so on.... after I finish reading the book or watching the movie I can STILL distinguish REALITY from the fantasy world I was briefly immersed in for ENTERTAINMENT as opposed to formative education.

 

[!Kaggen]

I don't care if Pixy uses his definition consistently... that only makes him consistently wrong.

I respectively disagree.
It is consistently not even wrong.

 

[!Kaggen]

But we do not say that either the Moon is pushed in the sky by gods or it is propelled by a motor. And since we do not want to believe in the god part then we defend the postulate that it is propelled by a motor with as much zealotry as the ones who insist it is pushed by gods.

Yes, its called idolatry.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Okay, keep the woo out it. I went to your previous post.

If one actually builds a computer from scratch....I do not mean assemble one.... I mean actually make a processor from scratch using FPGAs or actual transistors and all the memory and other peripherals needed.... then one might get an appreciation for how unlikely that it would ever become conscious regardless of the sophistication of the simulation software it is running.

My experience includes designing and testing (and working with a team) involved with computers and peripherals. And writing the programs in various languages. I have a full appreciation of the hardware and software, and I don't really agree. See my post about the internet growing in complexity.

I personally think that consciousness is an EMERGENT PROPERTY of A CRITICAL MASS of COMPLEXITY..... much like the individual cells in a body ALONE would not be able to crawl out of a primordial pool but as they COALESCED they created a SYNERGY where the whole is greater than the sum.

I tend to agree, but how is this different to "SkyNet" which is becoming probable? And surely it can be reduced to being described as a complex machine with complex programming?

Are we not the "environment" forcing an accelerated coalescing of a massively complex machine from a modern "pool" of interconnected machines. It reaches critical mass when it can replicate itself. Perhaps makind becomes the "stomach bacteria" needed to break down the "food".

As to not knowing, we may not know absolutely, but we can conjecture and hypothesise. And I see PixyMisa going one step beyond your statement to say that the Emergent Property is self-referential processing.

 

[Leumas]

My experience includes designing and testing (and working with a team) involved with computers and peripherals. And writing the programs in various languages. I have a full appreciation of the hardware and software, and I don't really agree. See my post about the internet growing in complexity.

I tend to agree, but how is this different to "SkyNet" which is becoming probable? And surely it can be reduced to being described as a complex machine with complex programming?

That is definitely your prerogative and is as valid a position as any.

However I am more inclined to go along with the neuroscientists for a slightly better position about the probability of SkyNet taking over the world than say James Cameron.

...a quote from a book on human brain function written by 5 neuroscientists:


"We have no idea how consciousness emerges from the physical activity of the brain and we do not know whether consciousness can emerge from non-biological systems, such as computers... At this point the reader will expect to find a careful and precise definition of consciousness. You will be disappointed. Consciousness has not yet become a scientific term that can be defined in this way. Currently we all use the term consciousness in many different and often ambiguous ways. Precise definitions of different aspects of consciousness will emerge ... but to make precise definitions at this stage is premature."


....I guess it's actually your assertion that is unsupported. These 5 neuroscientists seem to completely agree with !Kaggen. But that's ok...you're just wrong (...or what was it Wolfgang Pauli once said..." not even wrong " ).

 

[PartSkeptic]

Unlike in the fantasy world of SciFi a world cannot exist inside a computer like in Tron nor are we close to having a SkyNet that will destroy us.... all we have to do is UNPLUG the machine.... and unlike Hollywood script writers, real engineers and scientists design things with SAFETY SWITCHES and with Dead-man Switches.

Humans are fallible and sometimes the safeties fail. As a young engineer I did all the start-up and safety checks on a "mine winder" (the motor, controls, cable and drums for raising and lowering the cage in the 1.5 km shaft). When doing the first test run, it plummeted from the first stop to the bottom, in free fall with 3 men inside.

The emergency brakes did not come on at the first stop (the cage door can only be opened with brakes on). So the cage "crept" past the stop. They hit the various emergency stops. Then they shut off the power, so the emergency brake weights would drop. They did not. The motors burst, the cables (two one-inch steel wires) wrecked the head-gear and shaft. They initially blamed me - and I was adamant I was thorough. It turns out the mine connected "mine-rated compressed air" to the pistons lifting the emergency brake weights, and the valves jammed. The men survived through a serious of "braking events". Took 3 days to get to them.

We are further away from Tron because we need to "plug into the machine", but you should start evaluating the computerization of "everything" and how it connects into the internet.

 

[dlorde]

Yes.... it appears to be only supported by Pixy since no one has responded to the questions posed in this post.... I can only conclude that none here on this forum at least support Pixy's claim or if they do support it they are not willing to admit it.

If I am wrong and there are any here who do support Pixy's conclusions based on his definition please take a moment and respond to these questions.

I saw the questions and didn't respond because I thought they were either facetious or rhetorical.

AFAIR, Pixy never claimed that conscious computer programs are a 'peer reviewed scientifically proven fact', only that, because they have SRIP, they are conscious by the definition he provides. I myself have written programs involving SRIP, which are conscious by that definition.

It isn't particularly worthy of attention because, by this definition, many forms of consciousness are trivial; it takes considerable complexity make consciousness interesting. Also, it's not new; Hofstadter, Dennet, et al., have been discussing it for years.

For what it's worth, I too think SRIP is the essential basis of consciousness. I personally wouldn't call simple SRIP programs conscious because they don't generally use SRIP to generate interesting behaviours (e.g. generic flexibility, adaptability, creativity, learning, etc), which is how most people seem to think of consciousness. I think that wasp probably uses SRIP, but for general orientation and homeostasis, rather than flexible and creative behaviours. For me, this is where it gets interesting, so it's where I draw the (arbitrary & personal) fuzzy line where consciousness starts; SRIP is the basis, but I think the way it is applied is crucial. YYMV.

 

[westprog]

PixyMisa's definition of consciousness isn't used by people who actually study consciousness, because people who use his definition don't see consciousness qua consciousness as being worthy of study. Those who do tend to gravitate to one or more magic bean theories.

So an interest in consciousness inextricably leads to a belief in magic - and the only way to have a sensible theory is to find the subject boring?

 

[Leumas]

I saw the questions and didn't respond because I thought they were either facetious or rhetorical.

AFAIR, Pixy never claimed that conscious computer programs are a 'peer reviewed scientifically proven fact', only that, because they have SRIP, they are conscious by the definition he provides. I myself have written programs involving SRIP, which are conscious by that definition.

Have a look here

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.

ETA: What does YYMV stand for?

 

[AlBell]

delete