Explain consciousness to the layman.

[yy2bggggs]

Now I'm not going to bring up qualia as it causes heated debate and I don't see much relevance for consciousness with it. Qualia is of issue in a discussion of experience, which I'm not addressing.

Heh... you have an odd way of avoiding a subject.

My point is to do with knowing, being and the self

There's a lot there. Knowledge is justified true belief which is related to the subject of belief in an appropriate causal manner.

Not sure what you mean by being.

But I find it best to ascribe self to the agency aspect of our brains--basically, the entity that perceives, models, conceives, and causes intentional acts based on these things. This definition has the unfortunate disadvantage that it isn't actually always the object or subject of conscious awareness, which most people like to think of the self as being; but I think it fits better because it more closely models volition and various senses of agency.

So, since you've replied to me I'm doing my best to answer, but I'm not quite sure exactly what you're asking about though.

I know that I am looking at a reflection of the moon in a puddle, or I prefer to consider seeing a reflection of the moon in a dew drop.

Pretty much, there's a model of reality in your head that involves a criteria for what it means to be the moon. And that thing has a visual aspect--the thing you're looking at in the puddle fits into a theoretical construct of a reflection because it has a similar visual aspect to the moon, you presumably have a theory of reflections, and the context is sufficient to match this theory.

Also I am being present, I have presence in the physical realm in which the moon and the dewdrop are, in time and space.

Part of your model of reality includes a model of yourself. Your agency per se is highly integrated, and because you perceive the aspect of agency in itself, you include it within your model of reality. You perceive, for example, that you have particular thoughts, beliefs, drives, and so on, and that they are somehow related to your actions; and this perception is more or less correct (though like all other forms of perception, it's subject to particular illusions--though in this case we tend to refer to them as delusions). So you can understand your own actions in terms of your own perceived models, intentions, and so on.

With everything external to you, including other people, this doesn't work, because you simply cannot perceive the models, intentions, and so on the same way. With other people you get a sense that they have them, and, well, you're a person, so it's easy enough to form a theory that they are kind of like you. All of this forms a part of your model of reality; and the distinctions you learn to make between the ways you model yourself and the other kinds of things you have to do to model external entities (including other people) lend way for you to conceive yourself as a distinct kind of thing.

In what sense can these qualities to attributed to an intelligent computer?

They aren't necessarily aspects of an intelligent computer. If it's possible to build them in, each and every thing you want the computer to have must be implemented.

The chess playing program, for example, only has a particular abstract view of chess as its entire world. It performs legitimate choices, but that's about it. I would call it intelligent, in the AI sense of the word, but it just doesn't have the pieces to be self aware; the model it works with doesn't have enough pieces for me to label as concepts, there's no theory building about its environment so I wouldn't consider it to have knowledge in the same sense we do, and so on.

 

[rocketdodger]

ETA: I forgot to add....since you are ridiculing anyone who might "think" that a simulated tornado is as real as the real one then you must also be laughing at people who confuse a simulated consciousness with a real one....right?

No, because there is no such thing as a simulated consciousness.

A consciousness in a simulation is a real consciousness, because consciousness is information processing, and all information is still information.

A tornado is wind, moisture, debris, etc. Simulated wind, simulated moisture, and simulated debris, etc, are not equivalent to wind, moisture, debris, from our perspective. Thus a simulated tornado is not the same as a real tornado.

If, on the other hand, a tornado was just information processing like consciousness is, then it would be different. But it isn't.

 

[rocketdodger]

The above statements and a few others like them drove me to conclude erroneously that you might indeed believe that in the "world of a simulation" the "actual conscious entities" might be killed by a simulated tornado since they are in fact "actual conscious entities" that therefore can be killed and harmed by a tornado in the "world of simulation which is a world" just as in our world its analog "killed 200+ people in Tuscaloosa last year" who were equally conscious as the "simulated conscious entities".

I mean in the "simulated world which is a world" we could have also simulated Tuscaloosa and the “conscious entities” there would consciously be frightened by the (in their consciousness) all too real tornado in their “world which is a world”

No, your conclusion regarding statements I actually made was correct.

However, I was not aware that you define a tornado solely based on its ability to kill conscious entities.

If that is the definition you use, then I guess by your standards a simulated tornado is a real tornado.

Not sure why anyone would use that definition, though, since now apparently you think heart disease and terrorists are tornadoes as well ?

 

[rocketdodger]

How the heck does that work out?

Exactly.

 

[punshhh]

Heh... you have an odd way of avoiding a subject.

Good we won't use the Q word then.

There's a lot there. Knowledge is justified true belief which is related to the subject of belief in an appropriate causal manner.

Not sure what you mean by being.

But I find it best to ascribe self to the agency aspect of our brains--basically, the entity that perceives, models, conceives, and causes intentional acts based on these things. This definition has the unfortunate disadvantage that it isn't actually always the object or subject of conscious awareness, which most people like to think of the self as being; but I think it fits better because it more closely models volition and various senses of agency.

So, since you've replied to me I'm doing my best to answer, but I'm not quite sure exactly what you're asking about though.
Pretty much, there's a model of reality in your head that involves a criteria for what it means to be the moon. And that thing has a visual aspect--the thing you're looking at in the puddle fits into a theoretical construct of a reflection because it has a similar visual aspect to the moon, you presumably have a theory of reflections, and the context is sufficient to match this theory.
Part of your model of reality includes a model of yourself. Your agency per se is highly integrated, and because you perceive the aspect of agency in itself, you include it within your model of reality. You perceive, for example, that you have particular thoughts, beliefs, drives, and so on, and that they are somehow related to your actions; and this perception is more or less correct (though like all other forms of perception, it's subject to particular illusions--though in this case we tend to refer to them as delusions). So you can understand your own actions in terms of your own perceived models, intentions, and so on.

With everything external to you, including other people, this doesn't work, because you simply cannot perceive the models, intentions, and so on the same way. With other people you get a sense that they have them, and, well, you're a person, so it's easy enough to form a theory that they are kind of like you. All of this forms a part of your model of reality; and the distinctions you learn to make between the ways you model yourself and the other kinds of things you have to do to model external entities (including other people) lend way for you to conceive yourself as a distinct kind of thing.

They aren't necessarily aspects of an intelligent computer. If it's possible to build them in, each and every thing you want the computer to have must be implemented.

The chess playing program, for example, only has a particular abstract view of chess as its entire world. It performs legitimate choices, but that's about it. I would call it intelligent, in the AI sense of the word, but it just doesn't have the pieces to be self aware; the model it works with doesn't have enough pieces for me to label as concepts, there's no theory building about its environment so I wouldn't consider it to have knowledge in the same sense we do, and so on.

Im a short of time until next week, so I will reply briefly with a cogent point.

I am suggesting that for a conscious entity to know something and to have a self "being" is required. And being is that ingredient of the action of life itself.

Anything not alive cannot know anything, or know itself because it has no being.

To quote a fellow countryman of mine "To be or not to be, that is the question".

 

[yy2bggggs]

Good we won't use the Q word then.

We can... just don't expect me to acknowledge that it has a meaningful singular. There are a lot of others who will complain if you use that word--let them make their own counterarguments. But it's much more productive to focus on each thing than it is every single feature of our brain.

I am suggesting that for a conscious entity to know something and to have a self "being" is required. And being is that ingredient of the action of life itself.

But life could also be a confounding variable, so if you want to argue that agency requires life, you need to be able to rule out that it is a confounding variable. And to do this, you need to seriously consider that it may in fact be a confounding variable.

Confounding variables are a huge problem in research of complex relations, and this is certainly that sort of an issue. Demonstrating a correlation between agencies and life is insufficient. You need to produce some sort of argument that actually ties the property that makes an entity alive and the property that makes the entity an agent.

So if you want to argue this point, keep in mind that this should be your burden.

 

[westprog]

Well page 11 and still plenty of stupid. But basically I agree with everything westprog has said except I disagree that calling the brain a control system is particularly helpful.

I mean that the brain controls the actions of the body (or at least some of them). Is that not relevant?

 

[DavidByron]

I mean that the brain controls the actions of the body (or at least some of them). Is that not relevant?

I don't know. Is it? Could you answer the question I put to you on the last page here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8135029&postcount=3558

It seems like all you were doing for the first fifteen pages is trying to say that a Turing machine can't do it because it needs a little extra, which for me is, OK so we get a computer with a little extra, as all modern computers already are, and now what? Perhaps this was important to you because there's some mathematical proof that a simulation of a Turing machine's calculations is itself the same calculation whereas this is not proven of Turing Plus? Although even without proof that sounds pretty likely. But it doesn't seem like consciousness is a calculation anyway....

Depressing after 15 pages one of the more earnest commentators STILL doesn't comprehend the definition of (phenomenalogical) consciousness. Equates it with thinking essentially.

I hate to ask but what page do you get to talking about philosophical zombies? Or is that due for page 120?

You could prove you had reproduced consciousness in a robot fairly easily by just building the robot and then asking it if it was conscious or not. But apparently the robot would have to be smarter than about 75% of the people taking part in this thread. Or perhaps just less insanely dogmatic......

75 more pages to go to catch up....

ETA:

Robot: Am I conscious? What? There is no such thing as qualia! You believe in magical thinking!

Results of experiment: ambiguous.

 

[dlorde]

Nobody's defined consciousness for the layman yet, and now you want to speculate about a subconscious?

Good point, but subconscious/unconscious/non-conscious/whatever, it's already part of the discussion. People seem to understand the difference between being conscious and not conscious even though they can't quite define consciousness.

Can't say I'm that bothered, to be honest. My interest in the discussion has waned with its increasingly unpleasant pettiness and childishness.

 

[tsig]

I mean that the brain controls the actions of the body (or at least some of them). Is that not relevant?

Do you think the brain is separate from the body?

 

[rocketdodger]

Depressing after 15 pages one of the more earnest commentators STILL doesn't comprehend the definition of (phenomenalogical) consciousness. Equates it with thinking essentially.

1) Could you provide the definition you go with?

2) Do you think there can be phenomenalogical ( whatever that means ) consciousness without thinking? If so, I would ask how you could be aware of it, without thinking. So even if it can exist without thinking, how can you know it exists, without thinking? And if you need to think to know something exists, how can you say that it can exist without thinking?

 

[Leumas]

No, because there is no such thing as a simulated consciousness.

A consciousness in a simulation is a real consciousness, because consciousness is information processing, and all information is still information.

But I see that you in fact do NOT think the above highlighted part is true because you seem to think that the definition “is just monumentally simplistic” and “isn't a full explanation, nor particularly useful if one is trying to understand something in detail”.

Granted, that is like saying "switching" when someone asks "how does a computer work?" but in truth it isn't incorrect, it is just monumentally simplistic. Because a computer really does work by switching. Likewise consciousness is a type of self referential information processing. That isn't a full explanation, nor particularly useful if one is trying to understand something in detail, but it is certainly a correct explanation.

So which is it?.....make up your mind already. If consciousness is information processing then a computer is conscious but you deny that.....or are you now affirming it?

[snip]
"Do you think that there are currently “typical modern computers that exhibit mamallian subjective experience, mamallian awareness of self and the environment, and mamallian memory capacity ” due to running programs that are utilizing “reflection, or 'self-reference'” that any programmer can code?"

To that I definitely answer no.

Is this definition of yours “monumentally simplistic” and not “particularly useful” or is it not? If you are so sure that it is “information processing” to the extent where a simulation will result in a real consciousness in a computer then why do you label the definition “monumentally simplistic” and not “particularly useful”?

A tornado is wind, moisture, debris, etc. Simulated wind, simulated moisture, and simulated debris, etc, are not equivalent to wind, moisture, debris, from our perspective. Thus a simulated tornado is not the same as a real tornado.

So how does the above statement tally with the ones you made earlier

If I run a simulation of a tornado, and I output the results to a huge screen, from a distance the photons coming from the screen are almost identical in behavior to the photons coming from the tornado. If you want I can even add a pretty sky, a forest in the background. Then the photons coming from a given chunk of the horizon -- where the screen is -- are almost identical in behavior to the photons that would be coming from that chunk of the sky if there were no simulation + screen.

And I don't mean "identical" just to a human observer. They have very similar wavelengths and hence very similar energy, they are aligned in very similar ways, their numbers are very similar, etc. For all practical purposes the simulation has led to a change in the photons bouncing around our world that is very similar to the change that a real tornado makes.
So what do you call that, if it isn't "working?" Even more to the point, what do you call that, if not "existing?"
Saying that something which is producing some actual changes to the world, changes that are very similar to some of those than a tornado would cause, is neither "working" nor "existing" seems absurd to me.

You seem to be making statements that are diametrically opposed to each other. To put the whole ridiculous situation in your own very words

I really want to hear your answer to this because I honestly don't see how your entire argument holds water even in such an easy to imagine scenario. Maybe I am crazy, I dunno.

But in reply to the last sentence of the above quote "Maybe I am crazy, I dunno"….the following post really nails it

I agree that you are confused.
And if you would simply stop conflating reality and symbols, your confusion would end.
[snip]
There is no way around that.

By the way....If one day you stop being so utterly confused and finally decide what consciousness is please do not forget to inform the 5 scientists who say the following

...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."

 

[Leumas]

However, I was not aware that you define a tornado solely based on its ability to kill conscious entities.

If that is the definition you use, then I guess by your standards a simulated tornado is a real tornado.

Not sure why anyone would use that definition, though, since now apparently you think heart disease and terrorists are tornadoes as well ?

Nice try… good straw man…. but I am not the one who is utterly confused about the reality of tornados.... I define tornados as tornados...unlike you who defines them as “photons” and then confuses a simulated tornado as “existing”.

If I run a simulation of a tornado, and I output the results to a huge screen, from a distance the photons coming from the screen are almost identical in behavior to the photons coming from the tornado. If you want I can even add a pretty sky, a forest in the background. Then the photons coming from a given chunk of the horizon -- where the screen is -- are almost identical in behavior to the photons that would be coming from that chunk of the sky if there were no simulation + screen.

And I don't mean "identical" just to a human observer. They have very similar wavelengths and hence very similar energy, they are aligned in very similar ways, their numbers are very similar, etc. For all practical purposes the simulation has led to a change in the photons bouncing around our world that is very similar to the change that a real tornado makes.
So what do you call that, if it isn't "working?" Even more to the point, what do you call that, if not "existing?"
Saying that something which is producing some actual changes to the world, changes that are very similar to some of those than a tornado would cause, is neither "working" nor "existing" seems absurd to me.

I am not the one who is so darned confused about the reality of tornados to the extent where you think that "hooking up a big fan to the simulation" in addition to the “photons” along with some "seismic vibrations" and "sound too" will result in a "working and existing" tornado.

How about if we hook up a big fan to the simulation -- so now both photons and wind speed at some distance from the simulator happen to be close to that of a tornado. Sound, too? That is easy. Hey, I can even add seismic vibrations. By now even the forest animals will be running from cover -- yet it is only a simulation.

At what point does this thing become something that is "working" and "exists?" Are you going to keep moving the goalposts for team arbitrary?

So now.... who is the one who along with straw men

keep moving the goalposts for team arbitrary?

 

[yy2bggggs]

Good point, but subconscious/unconscious/non-conscious/whatever, it's already part of the discussion. People seem to understand the difference between being conscious and not conscious even though they can't quite define consciousness.

I don't.

 

[Leumas]

The above statements and a few others like them drove me to conclude erroneously that you might indeed believe that in the "world of a simulation" the "actual conscious entities" might be killed by a simulated tornado since they are in fact "actual conscious entities" that therefore can be killed and harmed by a tornado in the "world of simulation which is a world" just as in our world its analog "killed 200+ people in Tuscaloosa last year" who were equally conscious as the "simulated conscious entities".

I mean in the "simulated world which is a world" we could have also simulated Tuscaloosa and the “conscious entities” there would consciously be frightened by the (in their consciousness) all too real tornado in their “world which is a world”

No, your conclusion regarding statements I actually made was correct.

So you do really believe that "actual conscious entities" exist in a "world of a simulation"?

So you think the movies Tron and Tron Legacy are in fact documentaries? Or do you think that they are visionary prophecies of the future?


Do you really think that the protagonist in the documentary/prophecy is going to race his motorcycle (or is it car) and kill and smash all those antagonists created by the baddy computer? Wouldn't the computer be a god then since inside its world it created baddies to kill the hero? Those baddies were not created by the program of the simulation. So if the computer created "conscious entities" all by itself then as far as the "world of the simulation" is concerned the computer is in fact GOD.

So now we don’t just have "conscious entities" in the "world of the simulation" … we also have the computer being a god…. it is not the programmer who is a god…. it is the computer since the programmer did not create the baddies to kill the hero…. it was the computer itself.

The computer would be “conscious” and for the “conscious entities” in the “world of the simulation” the computer is outside the time and space of the “world of the simulation” and thus the computer would be god... much like the god of the delusions of humans.... but in this case it would be a real one since the computer is real...no? Congratulations…. you have just created god in the machine as opposed to Deus Ex Machina.

 

[DavidByron]

1) Could you provide the definition you go with?

2) Do you think there can be phenomenalogical ( whatever that means ) consciousness without thinking? If so, I would ask how you could be aware of it, without thinking. So even if it can exist without thinking, how can you know it exists, without thinking? And if you need to think to know something exists, how can you say that it can exist without thinking?

Consciousness is the experience or awareness of stuff in your mind (eg senses, memories, inner dialogue etc). Qualia is another word for stuff in your consciousness and so is phenomena. Phenomenalogical consciousness just disambiguates consciousness as I just defined it and not meaning those other ways people use the word conscious eg. meaning "not asleep", or "thinking" or "having an image of yourself" or whatever.

So the terms are very elementary terms to define what is being talked about at all. It's useful to stop people talking at cross purposes for the first fifteen pages of a thread on consciousness for example.

"Thinking" is not a word used to mean anything very precise so I'd have to ask you what you meant by it to answer your question. For example "thinking" could just mean "conscious". That might be how you mean it which would explain why you think consciousness without thinking is an odd concept.

But I think most people would want to say that "thinking" implies some sort of inner monologue or decision making or some sort of activity beyond just sitting there doing nothing and "not thinking about anything".

I would also say that people do a lot of thinking without requiring consciousness although again you might prefer a different word for the stuff that goes on in our unconscious minds to do things like figure out how to catch a ball or for that matter figure out what to say in cases where we don't spend any time really paying attention (eg what response to use when someone says "How are you?")

Perhaps you can't be thinking that your thinking nothing at the time you're not thinking it, but you can easily be not thinking and then someone comes along and says "what are you thinking about?" and you realise "nothing".

Does that answer your question?

 

[Piggy]

I never said a simulated tornado is a real tornado. Ever.

I am merely questioning your assertion that a simulated tornado doesn't exist without an observer. I don't see how it can "not exist" since a simulated tornado can lead to certain changes in the world. That doesn't make sense to me, since if changes are affected, something must be happening.

Well, you're simply contradicting yourself here.

You admit that the simulator isn't producing a real tornado, then you go on to claim that you don't see how the simulated tornado could possibly not exist.

What leads to changes in the world, in this case, is the behavior of the machine... since that's the only behavior we have.

Except, of course, for the other necessary part in the system... the programmer/reader.

I would like you to name one "change in the world" which is caused by the running of a digital computer simulation of a tornado which is the type of change we would expect from a tornado and not from a simulator machine, except for causing a human being to imagine a tornado which is what the simulator machine is designed to do.

I don't believe you can do that.

In fact, I'm sure you can't, but I do invite you to try.

As I've said, and conclusively demonstrated, the only place where the target of the simulation exists is in the mind of a programmer/reader.

When you look at the simulator machine and think about a tornado, that's where the tornado exists.

It does not, and cannot, exist in the machine or anywhere else.

 

[Piggy]

Oh, so you are making up even more stuff now?

No, I did not make up the word "replica". Scrounge around for an old dictionary, you'll find it there.

In my line of work, we use the word "emulation" as well, to mean something that is similar to an original in some ways, but not all ways.

So in that sense, both the doll-house chair and the computer simulation of the chair could be considered "emulations" of the original chair.

The terms "simulation" and "replia" are therefore much better terms, imo, to describe the difference between the doll-house chair and the one on the computer screen.

Preferring the term "emulation" does not help your case any.

 

[Piggy]

That is a bit of a misrepresentation of the debate going on here.

Fundamentally the debate here boils down to whether there is a need for God or magic beans in order to produce consciousness, or not.

We admit that we don't understand everything, however one thing we will not admit is that there is room for God or magic beans in our heads. There certainly isn't in mine, thank you very much. That is one thing I fully understand.

It is still extremely bizarre to hear folks make this accusation, when the biological perspective is precisely that there is no need for anything except matter and energy.

No God, no magic, no nothing.

We don't even include an imaginary logical layer, just physics.

This is why, for example, we notice that synesthesia occurs between experiences which are not logically related, but which share adjacent real estate in the brain.

It's all physical... no magic, no gods, no beans.

Why y'all keep insisting otherwise is nothing short of baffling.

 

[Piggy]

As we can see from the many logical errors in the 911 threads, explosions (and most other phenomena) do not scale evenly. Things at one scale behave differently to those at another.

True, but why not cut some slack in this case? The point is that dodger's analogy was off. At least with the explosions you get 2 real explosions, while with the simulator machine all you get is a simulator machine.