Explain consciousness to the layman.

[!Kaggen]

Oh, sorry. I assumed you'd want to know why your post was meaningless. My bad.

semantics is not my game it's yours.

 

[westprog]

That doesn't answer the question. Consider the following 16th century discussion:

"I personally think that only evolved carbon based life forms are capable of powered flight."

"Why ?"

"Evidence."

Such a conversation could certainly have taken place. However, the difference is that anyone by throwing a stone could have seen that it was possible for flight to take place. There is no corresponding similar example for consciousness.

The problem with the analysis of flight was that there was no coherent theory as to what enabled birds to fly. It was thought that merely attaching feathers, or flapping wings attached to arms, might be sufficient. It was only when a science of aerodynamics was established that powered flight became possible.

 

[Leumas]

I personally think that only evolved carbon based life forms are capable of consciousness. I also think that we are mostly deterministic, but I would like to think we are not machines, and therefore do have a degree of free will.

I personally believe one day we will be able to EMULATE the human brain in a machine....... but not by programming it..... sure some parts may be programmed to do control of certain physical processes... but just like controlling a lathe.... we need the lathe’s mechanical parts to perform the lathing no matter how much programming there is.

I think something akin to a neural network that can emulate the PHYSICS of the brain will have a very good chance. But actual physics not simulated physics....


Do you appreciate the difference between emulate and simulate? We can simulate a hurricane in a computer..... but it will never do anything to the real world. However if we emulate a hurricane we will actually have moving and whirling wind that can lift physical objects and so on.

If I simulate a plane on a computer it will do anything to the real world..... but if I emulate an airplane then it will give the pilot a REAL seat-of-the-pants sensory feedback.

An aside - while living in New York I found myself translating for New Yorkers and foreigners at the airports and in the city. Both speaking English. It was when I had to translate "Southern Georgia english" into "New York english" that I realized how strange dialects can sound to some.

Living in cosmopolitan cities one gets accustomed to hearing English spoken with a foreign accents. I personally rarely have difficulty understanding a person with a foreign accent regardless of how strong it is. I can easily reconstruct their broken words inside my head.

However, most people who have never had exposure to foreigners speaking English cannot understand what a person even with a slight accent is saying (as with my ex-wife and the cockney porter).

This fact has always fascinated me…. people who speak more than one language or are bilingual are much more capable of understanding their language spoken with a heavy accent.

Back to consciousness. Pixy was quite clear - man is a machine and becomes aware because it's programming results in SRIP.

Yes....humans are machines.... and ABSOLUTELY yes.... SRIP is a SYMPTOM of consciousness.... it is definitely a RESULT of consciousness..... but it is not the cause.

No.....brains are NOT programmed..... brains do not run programs nor are they programmed.

We can describe the movement of the planets by Orbital physics equations and calculus. We have very specific mathematical laws and equations that the planets seem to be following.....no?

But that does not mean that the moon performs differential equation to figure out where it is going to be the next time interval. The moon does not have a PROGRAM that makes it move from one position to the next. It just moves as part of space-time physics.

Likewise with the brain...... some of the thought processes of the brain and some of the manifested functions of the brain can be DESCRIBED using a program..... but the brain does not have a program that makes it do the actions we simulated in a computer program.

Just like the orbital calculus equations are not programmed in the moon so is the brain not following a SET PROCEDURE of sequential or even parallel programming.


But yes.... a computer is programmed and its programming is DESIGNED to mimic SRIP making the computer APPEAR to be SRIPing and thus giving the illusion of being superficially conscious.


Let me see if I can drive this idea a little further...... think of a robot.... there is a wireless remote control on it and a lot of sensory feedback to a human person sitting remotely from the robot and is controlling it.

Now we have a person interact with the robot (call him I). The human controlling the robot (call him C) can hear and see and can make the robot speak and move in all possible ways and can thus realistically and in real time respond to I.

For all intents and purposes the interacting person (I) will think that the robot is amazingly alive because to him the experience is very much as if he was interacting with a real human. Since he does not know that C is the one doing all the interaction I will conclude that the robot is realistically human.....which is exactly true since the robot was only doing what C made it do.

Ok..... so far you can easily appreciate that in this case it would hardly be fair to say that the robot is conscious since it was remotely controlled by C and that is the only reason it exhibited the characteristics of a human.... and in fact even much like C….. right?

Now ....since you are fond of scifi..... imagine we could devise a way to have C control the robot without an actual remote controller but directly with his brain. The same situation is repeated but with C controlling the robot using his brain..... would you call the robot conscious now? Of course not..... because it is still being controlled..... no? I hope you can see that.

So now consider this..... a program in a computer that makes the computer do things is in fact AS IF the programmer is the controller…..... in fact that is exactly what it is..... the programmer sets a procedure in the computer to make it respond the way he would respond had he been there. In other words it is just like being remotely controlled but IN ANTICIPATION.

A computer program is nothing more than the programmer ANTICIPATING a situation and then writing the code to RESPOND to the anticipated situation.

So a computer program is nothing more than REMOTE CONTROL of the computer. It is just a different kind of remote control from what you are used to think of as remote control.

More advanced computer programs are written in anticipation of not being able to anticipate all possible situations and thus we try to anticipate how to make it respond in those unanticipated situations using code that has randomness or to occasionally perform a different subroutine.

By the way self modifying programs are really nothing different from subroutine jumping.

Even more advanced programming is adaptive programming which also uses randomness and occasional routine changes but also it memorizes the input and output that caused success. In other words it memorizes HISTORICAL behavior patterns and uses that memorized data to modify its behavior in future similar situations.

I think this pdf might explain a lot about what I mean. Read sections 16.1 to 16.3 inclusive…. also notice the diagram below.

A program is REMOTE CONTROL in anticipation. Can you see how a machine that follows a program can never be considered conscious or even intelligent….. the intelligence and consciousness are the programmer’s not the machine’s.


Click on the diagram to see a larger version of it

If a silicon based networked machine is programmed to do the same (effectively a massive artificial intelligence), why is the machine's level of self-awareness not the same as that of a human? If the machine is able to reproduce/repair/grow by controlling every aspect of a supply chain using the internet without needing humans, why is it not equivalent?

See above

Are you perhaps trying so hard NOT to attribute human characteristics to a machine that you are eliminating the possibility that a machine can meet some of the criteria for carbon-based life? If machine "life" evolves by standing on the shoulders of the humans, is that not like humans who were the product of "apes" - just another step in evolution.

No…..because when humans evolved from apes the apes did not say we want to construct a new body type and put some programs in it and maybe one day it will use us for medical and other experimentation so that their women can have safer cosmetics that do not pot mark their faces.

That is not how evolution works.

[snip nice scifi musings]

Nice science fiction ponderings….. but that is all they are…. Fiction. I am a scifi fan too. It is my favorite genre in movies and Xbox games…. Not so much books…. I like to read educational stuff….. but I like to watch action movies and scifi preferably.

Consider the transporter ala Star Trek.... do you think we will ever be able to do it.... I doubt it..... but in reality there is nothing in it that violates the laws of physics. Also a broken cup cannot ever be reversed in time to be mended despite the MATH saying it could.

 

[Leumas]

Such a conversation could certainly have taken place. However, the difference is that anyone by throwing a stone could have seen that it was possible for flight to take place. There is no corresponding similar example for consciousness.

Not just that....people have been flying kites since 800 BCE.

Egyptians had what appears to be functional toy gliders. The Chinese had flying helicopter toys.


People have been making paper airplanes since 500 BCE.


The helicopter has been known since 500 BCE.

The problem with the analysis of flight was that there was no coherent theory as to what enabled birds to fly. It was thought that merely attaching feathers, or flapping wings attached to arms, might be sufficient. It was only when a science of aerodynamics was established that powered flight became possible.

People for ages have known that inanimate objects can fly but they did not understand it and once we LEARNED MORE thanks to science we had a critical threshold where it became really viable.

But humans have known for ages that other than biological things can fly. They just did not understand how to generate the necessary power.

But the analogy is fallacious..... a more proper analogy would be

I don't think that a simulated axe will ever be able to cut a tree.​

 

[Leumas]

It seems to me both sides of this debate suffer from some implicit appeal to authority. That is, both sides see the existing body of knowledge primarily supporting their argument,

An appeal to authority fallacy is when someone uses a famous or popular person to support his argument even though the person is not knowledgeable in the field relating to the argument.

An example would be when someone says X says that computers are conscious and I really like him so he must be right.

When a person refers to an EXPERT in the field relating to the argument it is not a fallacy..... in fact it is the epitome of intelligence to refer to expert authority since that is how science works.

When an article in a publication CITES a published research it is appealing to expert authority and that is EXACTLY what an intelligent person who wants to follow PROPER scientific and academic practices does when developing and supporting an argument.

An example is when someone cites neuroscientists who do the up to date scientific research on the brain when talking about the neurology of the brain.

except for a few kooks who disagree. Case in point: the multiple times people have cited the neurobiologists' saying that consciousness has "not yet become a scientific term that can be defined" as evidence their their definition is correct.

It is sometimes necessary to repeat something multiple times because some people do not get the point the first time. It is necessary to HAMMER the point with certain people.

So it is definitely not kooky to repeat things.... it is only a good teaching technique.

I teach math to people who are not good at it and I find the technique of repeatedly explaining the same thing to them over and over to be necessary and very effective.

However, I occasionally have some students who object to the technique and they are usually the ones who fail the exam. It is mostly that they are just ignorant of their ignorance and usually will never learn since one who is ignorant of his ignorance does not know that he needs to learn….he already knows it all.

 

[Piggy]

Wait, did you really just say that? Are you claiming that modern physics is completely wrong and everything isn't actually relative?

No, I'm not claiming that modern physics is "wrong".

But your claim that you can blow something to smithereens and still have it do the same work by making its particles keep dancing in sync, well... let's just say that this is a claim which does not appear to rely on modern physics at all.

 

[Piggy]

Why could your truck not do the same work it does now?

If by definition the machine insures that the particle interactions result in the same behavior, the truck would be able to do anything it can now.

You need to get your head out of your particles.

A truck blown to smithereens and strewn across the galaxy can't do the same physical work as a truck that has not been blown to smithereens.

To say otherwise is ridiculous.

And to resort to an appeal to relativity, well, Piggy's Law.

 

[rocketdodger]

You need to get your head out of your particles.

A truck blown to smithereens and strewn across the galaxy can't do the same physical work as a truck that has not been blown to smithereens.

To say otherwise is ridiculous.

And to resort to an appeal to relativity, well, Piggy's Law.

Why is it ridiculous?

Find me one actual definition of "physical work" that breaks down in this scenario.

 

[rocketdodger]

No, I'm not claiming that modern physics is "wrong".

But your claim that you can blow something to smithereens and still have it do the same work by making its particles keep dancing in sync, well... let's just say that this is a claim which does not appear to rely on modern physics at all.

You are aware that at extreme relative velocities, the observed spatial translation of groups of particles can diverge greatly from their observed spatial translation at relative rest, right?

Or were you not aware of this?

Basically I can "compress" your head, down to a shape you could consider "ridiculous" apparently, by just moving at a speed close to the speed of light relative to you.

Don't complain that I am being absurd, this is just what modern physics tells us.

 

[Minoosh]

Except in this case, the mechanism is at least plausible.

Did you even read the article?

Would this necessarily relate to quantum consciousness at all, or is it stepping aside into more demonstrable/testable theories and (relatively) straightforward anatomical explanations?

ETA: And does it say have any implications for AI/emergent theories or contradict materialism in any way? Does it provide any safe haven for qualia? Other than knowing nothing about neuroanatomy, cellular biology, quantum physics or computer programming I'm reasonably well-informed

 

[punshhh]

"Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Gilbert Ryle, for example, argued that traditional understanding of consciousness depends on a Cartesian dualist outlook that improperly distinguishes between mind and body, or between mind and world. He proposed that we speak not of minds, bodies, and the world, but of individuals, or persons, acting in the world. Thus, by speaking of 'consciousness' we end up misleading ourselves by thinking that there is any sort of thing as consciousness separated from behavioral and linguistic understandings. More generally, many philosophers and scientists have been unhappy about the difficulty of producing a definition that does not involve circularity or fuzziness."

I do not confuse my thinking in this way. It is you who is adding a virtual or digital reality alongside the physical world resulting in a dualism through the back door.

I realise that these worlds don't actually exist other than in the form of coded abstractions and images on a screen.

Are you claiming that there is no such thing as consciousness? just behavior.

This is exactly what I have been noting as a problem with everyone in this thread who is disputing the computational approach: That their dispute is founded in a dualist version of consciousness that cannot possibly exist. It is only by abandoning these logically incoherent notions that any progress can be made.

You miss understand me and it seems Piggy aswell. Neither of us is thinking in a dualist way.

I have repeatedly said that consciousness is a property of biology, ie chemistry and physics.

Subjective experience and consciousness is a natural phenomena obeying natural law. The fact that we don't yet understand the phenomena does not mean it is magical.

My definition cuts straight through those dualist notions like a buzz saw.

Including consciousness.

 

[westprog]

No, I'm not claiming that modern physics is "wrong".

But your claim that you can blow something to smithereens and still have it do the same work by making its particles keep dancing in sync, well... let's just say that this is a claim which does not appear to rely on modern physics at all.

"everything is relative". One way to sum up Einstein. Of course, what relativity actually proves is that in principle, it would be impossible to manipulate a distributed web of atoms, because of the time delays. The exploded version would take thousands of years to complete a single interaction.

 

[Piggy]

"everything is relative". One way to sum up Einstein. Of course, what relativity actually proves is that in principle, it would be impossible to manipulate a distributed web of atoms, because of the time delays. The exploded version would take thousands of years to complete a single interaction.

That's true, but we've agreed to ignore that (via a stipulated "magical machine" that's part of the thought experiment).

RD assumes (presumably because he ignores syntax, tho maybe I'm wrong about the why here) that as long as each particle can influence another one in the same way as it did before (via our magical machine) then the smithereened object will continue to do the same work it did before.

Every time I think the rabbit holes into absurdity can't go any deeper, I find my ears popping again.

And the thing is, this assumption of his violates the known laws of physics so brutally that it's difficult to know how to respond in any way that's going to make sense to someone who cannot see in the first place why a vaporized brain or truck or arm can't do what it used to do pre-vaporization.

Until and unless he lets go of the nut and gets his hand out of the tree, I mean, what do you do?

And what I'm wondering, too, is how this is all going to tie back in when we have to remove our magic machine from the picture.

 

[Piggy]

Find me one actual definition of "physical work" that breaks down in this scenario.

Haul a pile of brush to the dump.

Lift a coffee cup.

 

[Piggy]

You are aware that at extreme relative velocities, the observed spatial translation of groups of particles can diverge greatly from their observed spatial translation at relative rest, right?

Or were you not aware of this?

Basically I can "compress" your head, down to a shape you could consider "ridiculous" apparently, by just moving at a speed close to the speed of light relative to you.

So?

Why do you think that matters?

I have to cite Piggy's Law on you again, I'm afraid.

 

[Leumas]

So?

Why do you think that matters?

I have to cite Piggy's Law on you again, I'm afraid.

What is that?

 

[westprog]

So?

Why do you think that matters?

I have to cite Piggy's Law on you again, I'm afraid.

Relativity, right from when it was first proposed, has always been used to justify all kinds of weirdness - much as quantum theory is. The fact remains - relativity has nothing to do with the normal interactions of particles moving at low relative velocities. Indeed, the independence of a frame of motion is the whole point of relativity. We don't need to consider whether a computer or a brain is moving across the universe at 20% of the speed of light. It's a principle of relativity that we don't need to consider this. The system will interact normally.

 

[westprog]

That's true, but we've agreed to ignore that (via a stipulated "magical machine" that's part of the thought experiment).

RD assumes (presumably because he ignores syntax, tho maybe I'm wrong about the why here) that as long as each particle can influence another one in the same way as it did before (via our magical machine) then the smithereened object will continue to do the same work it did before.

Every time I think the rabbit holes into absurdity can't go any deeper, I find my ears popping again.

And the thing is, this assumption of his violates the known laws of physics so brutally that it's difficult to know how to respond in any way that's going to make sense to someone who cannot see in the first place why a vaporized brain or truck or arm can't do what it used to do pre-vaporization.

Until and unless he lets go of the nut and gets his hand out of the tree, I mean, what do you do?

And what I'm wondering, too, is how this is all going to tie back in when we have to remove our magic machine from the picture.

As an example of how a widely distributed system couldn't work, it might be quite helpful. However, even if we were to ignore everything we know about physical law and accept it as possible, it still wouldn't prove anything. If it did prove anything, it would only prove the incorrect assumptions that were used to construct the example in the first place.

 

[westprog]

An appeal to authority fallacy is when someone uses a famous or popular person to support his argument even though the person is not knowledgeable in the field relating to the argument.

An example would be when someone says X says that computers are conscious and I really like him so he must be right.

When a person refers to an EXPERT in the field relating to the argument it is not a fallacy..... in fact it is the epitome of intelligence to refer to expert authority since that is how science works.

When an article in a publication CITES a published research it is appealing to expert authority and that is EXACTLY what an intelligent person who wants to follow PROPER scientific and academic practices does when developing and supporting an argument.

An example is when someone cites neuroscientists who do the up to date scientific research on the brain when talking about the neurology of the brain.

It's still possible for even eminent experts to be wrong - but citing research and articles by scientists is how things are normally done. We can't do all the investigation personally. Even if we could, there's no reason why anyone would believe us when we posted about it on JREF.

However, if citing what neurologists believe, it's a good idea to quote actual passages from actual neuroscientists, rather than vague assertions.

It is sometimes necessary to repeat something multiple times because some people do not get the point the first time. It is necessary to HAMMER the point with certain people.

So it is definitely not kooky to repeat things.... it is only a good teaching technique.

I teach math to people who are not good at it and I find the technique of repeatedly explaining the same thing to them over and over to be necessary and very effective.

However, I occasionally have some students who object to the technique and they are usually the ones who fail the exam. It is mostly that they are just ignorant of their ignorance and usually will never learn since one who is ignorant of his ignorance does not know that he needs to learn….he already knows it all.

Most of the people posting here have made the same points over and over.

 

[Piggy]

What is that?

As any discussion of a bogus scientific claim grows longer, the probability of an appeal to relativity or quantum mechanics approaches 1.