Explain consciousness to the layman.

[Piggy]

So you claim computation takes place outside of physical reality?

No, both type take place in physical reality.

Physical computation takes place literally everywhere.

Logical computation involves (or is) changes in the state of a brain, so it's more limited in scope, but still just as real.

 

[Piggy]

They did a pretty good job (clearly not perfect) of getting Watson to figure them out on the fly.

Yeah. One of the computer/brain differences, that.

 

[Piggy]

No I don't. The only thing my waking up proves is that I woke up.

And I'm well aware of how arguments from authority work. You make one every time you presume to speak for all neurobiology. Tossing on association fallacies aren't likely to distract me.

And waking up means turning on the experience generator.

And if I'm mischaracterizing the nuerobio position, well, let's hear from the computational literalist faction among neurobiologists.

 

[Piggy]

I was intending on using it to help piggy understand why behavior isomorphic to some other behavior was important in this context.

The plan was to arrive at an agreement regarding a hypothetical scenario where arbitrary transformations applied to sets of particles resulted in "similar" sets of particles that retained behavior equivalent to the original set despite the those arbitrary transformations.

You could have just asked me if I agree that isomorphic behavior is important, and I would have said yes.

The problem with your scenario was simply that your transformations do not retain entirely equivalent behavior.

Look, why not just find another scenario to describe, one that works?

 

[Piggy]

The issue is that westprog refuses to respond directly to me, yet responds indirectly to me with strawmen in posts directed to you. I have no way to respond to westprog and say "hey, that is a strawman, you are mischaracterizing my position" because he is never talking to me.

Can you understand why observing a dialogue like that, between you two, would be extremely frustrating? If westprog spoke to me directly I wouldn't have an issue.

Well, yeah, but I gotta say, don't complain to me about it. I mean, I'm having a conversation with you, right?

But I'm not also going to stop having conversations with Westprog because of a beef between y'all, though, even if some of those conversations are about your posts or views that you hold.

Sorry, man, I just can't. That's between you and Westie, I don't want in.

 

[westprog]

Well, yeah, but I gotta say, don't complain to me about it. I mean, I'm having a conversation with you, right?

But I'm not also going to stop having conversations with Westprog because of a beef between y'all, though, even if some of those conversations are about your posts or views that you hold.

Sorry, man, I just can't. That's between you and Westie, I don't want in.

The reason I'm doing it this way is very simple. I want to discuss the issues in a forceful but focused way, and it turns out that this is the only way to do it. Naturally I might end up missing some interesting stuff along the way, but there doesn't seem to be any alternative.

Don't worry, I won't start using you as an "ask your mother to pass the butter" intermediary.

 

[rocketdodger]

The problem with your scenario was simply that your transformations do not retain entirely equivalent behavior.

I admit, that was a problem with your strawman interpretation of my scenario.

However it wasn't actually a problem with *my* scenario, because I clearly stated that a premise of *my* scenario was maintaining entirely equivalent behavior via a magical machine.

It is frustrating to see how people continually try to limit the ideas expressed in posts to you, because of how liberal you have gotten with strawmen, yet every time you find a way to make strawmen out of even the simplest of ideas.

The whole point of such a simple thought exercise was to limit the potential ideas that you could misunderstand and take off with a tangent about. I guess that didn't go so well for me, eh?

 

[rocketdodger]

No, both type take place in physical reality.

Then how can you say this:

It's the abandonment of anchoring in physical reality that leads, one way or another, to all the bizarre conclusions of the computational literalists.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

And if I'm mischaracterizing the nuerobio position, well, let's hear from the computational literalist faction among neurobiologists.

I believe you have been. I don't think anyone has said that neurobiology, or the computation of intelligence, is in any way a solved problem. You keep asserting they have, though.

 

[westprog]

I believe you have been. I don't think anyone has said that neurobiology, or the computation of intelligence, is in any way a solved problem. You keep asserting they have, though.

What has been asserted is that the problem has been solved to the extent that some form of computation will be equivalent to the function of the brain. This is what Pixy, for example, has claimed - not only that, he's insisted that the only alternative is a belief in magic beans.

The difference is between the people who claim that the way to solve the problem is to find the right kind of computation, and the people who claim that we don't know that. There may also be people asserting that computation absolutely will not solve the problem.

Part of the problem with this discussion is trying to figure out what is and is not being claimed on various sides. It's particularly confusing because while people tend to align in a binary fashion, what each person thinks is slightly different. For instance, I get the impression that a number of people supporting the computationalist viewpoint don't necessarily insist that some form of computer simulation must eventually be conscious - only that it probably may be. Very few of the opponents of the computational view claim that it is entirely disproven - only that it is not proven, and may or may not be likely. Given the various viewpoints, a lot of the time ends up being spent arguing past each other.

 

[rocketdodger]

I believe you have been. I don't think anyone has said that neurobiology, or the computation of intelligence, is in any way a solved problem. You keep asserting they have, though.

That is only partially accurate.

I think the big disconnect in the last 60 pages of this thread is with the fundamental idea that you could go from

1) biological neural network hooked up to a body -->
2) physical network of discrete machines that act like neurons hooked up to a body -->
3) single physical machine supporting an artificial neural network running in software, hooked up to a body -->
4) single physical machine supporting an artificial neural network hooked up to a body, all running in software

... and have the results be the same as far as "consciousness" goes.

To the extent that piggy claims we have asserted to have "solved the problem" it is only in the context of our assertions that the above idea is sound regardless of what "acting like a neuron" entails, which I would agree with -- we certainly have asserted that.

The curious thing is that the divide in the thread participants on the above idea doesn't strictly match the divide between ontological worldviews.

 

[rocketdodger]

Given the various viewpoints, a lot of the time ends up being spent arguing past each other.

I don't think so.

I think it is quite clear what is being argued about, and where various people stand.

 

[Belz...]

You continue to treat logical computations and physical computations as equivalent, yet we know they are not.

Computations are, necessarily, physical. What do you mean by this ?

Then what distinguishes the pattern matching which is involved in your experience of yourself and the world from the pattern matching which is not?

An example of the latter ?

 

[Belz...]

The important thing about Watson's errors versus human errors is what they reveal about how the responses are generated.

[...]

Watson is AI, not AC. Not because he fails to understand categories, but because he's not designed and built to be conscious.

None of this tells us whether it is conscious. And none of this answers my question: how could you tell if it is ?

 

[Belz...]

Sorry about not replying earlier, but given the next post and my thinking about it, I now respond, and change my stance.



I am part theist and part non-theist. I have no "proof/evidence" that is convincing to me, never mind to others.

My non-theist side says we are machines, and if so, carbon or silicon makes no difference, nor does the physical structure (transistors or what ever).

I put aside woo arguments on this thread, but I realize my requirement of a biological substrate was due to my theist bias. This too is likely to be incorrect if I use logic. If there is a God, then God can decide what has consciousness and what does not.

That's very big of you. I commend you.

 

[Belz...]

And waking up means turning on the experience generator.

You are aware, of course, that you're still conscious while sleeping, right ? What are dreams if not experiences, for instance, and how do you wake up to a loud noise if you don't experience ?

 

[tsig]

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed previously moderated content in quoted material

Humans are special. Acknowledging that consciousness is the result of materiel processes removes that specialness.


That's the only motivation I see.

 

[annnnoid]

Humans are special. Acknowledging that consciousness is the result of materiel processes removes that specialness.


That's the only motivation I see.

How does acknowledging this remove the ‘specialness’ when a)…there is no clear understanding of what ‘material process’ even means (did you hear…the latest research has concluded that matter […presumably the metaphysical root of the word ‘material’] is informational in nature)…either metaphysically or scientifically…and b) there is no clear understanding of how consciousness is a result of it…and c) there is no clear understanding of what the ‘it’ (consciousness) is that results.

Tell me tsig…is mathematics a ‘material’ process?

 

[Leumas]

Humans are special.

No one claimed that humans are special as evinced by the inclusion of dogs and cats and even squirrels as conscious.

The subject at hand is consciousness and it is quite well repeated here that animals are conscious such as pigeons with a brain the size of hazelnut.

So no one is saying anything about humans being special.

Go read the posts and you will find out.

Acknowledging that consciousness is the result of materiel processes removes that specialness.


That's the only motivation I see.

This shows a lack of understanding of the positions of the arguments being proposed in this thread.

Consciousness is the result of material process is exactly what the side you are opposed to is proposing.

The side you oppose is the one arguing that it is PRECISELY material interaction that gives rise to consciousness......your side of the argument are the ones who are denying that.

 

[yy2bggggs]

The side you oppose is the one arguing that it is PRECISELY material interaction that gives rise to consciousness......your side of the argument are the ones who are denying that.

Actually, the highlighted statement cannot be made without the strangely ironic dualistic notion that abacuses are spiritual.