Explain consciousness to the layman.

[punshhh]

No. Life is chemistry.

And what is chemistry? Why is it the way it is here? Why is matter such that there are those elements found on the periodic table, why does water expand when it freezes etc etc...

Science has not answered any of these questions, it has merely discovered a few things about the way matter behaves in our locality.

I know you will refer me to some papers on physics, I've already read them.
Science has put together a good body of knowledge about the world we find ourselves in and the mathematical modeling of the system is quite consistent.

But nothing science has discovered or explained or that maths has modeled has told us anything about existence other than how it appears to behave locally.

We are afloat in a sea of assumptions most of which we have no inkling of.

It does.

You can't say this as no matter has been created in the lab from the models.

You know the routine now Pixy. You say something that is standing on the shoulders of assumptions and I point out to you that if it is regarding matter (what exists) we are only beginning to scratch the surface of what we are dealing with.

This is why technological advances are are achieved in the school of hard knocks and try and try again.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

And what is chemistry? Why is it the way it is here? Why is matter such that there are those elements found on the periodic table, why does water expand when it freezes etc etc...

Science has not answered any of these questions, it has merely discovered a few things about the way matter behaves in our locality.

Well, science in general will only answer how-questions.

Thus it has been the case that people investing time and energy in translating general why-questions into detailed how-questions have, over time, been able to generate great progress within their field of study, whereas those insisting on staying with why questions seem rather stagnated.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

I don't think anyone claims they've completely figured it out, but I do understand a lot more than I did when I first became curious about the brain. I was 12 years old when I first debated the nature of consciousness with computer professionals. That was a VERY long time ago (the mid 60s) and I still remember much of what was said.

I think we are past the point of "the more you know, the more you find out what you don't know." The range of what we don't know about how the brain works looks like it's shrinking. The magic bean is disappearing.

I would hope we could agree on that, but I'm not sure.

 

[Belz...]

If I want to find out how computers work, I can talk to somebody who builds the things.

How does that answer my post ? You think there is no causal relation between instructions, then you are wrong, plain and simple, or you are using an unrealistic definition of "relation". If you had ever programmed at all, you'd realise that.

 

[Belz...]

Protip: Computers are not conscious.

Protip: it's important to be able to support your arguments with more than assertions so...

...how do you know ?

 

[dlorde]

What sort of physical device do you think you'd need to manufacture in order to reproduce the function of the neuron?

I think it could be a custom processor (i.e. the same type of technology as current microprocessors). I don't think the behaviour of the device itself would be technically problematic, but interfacing to the local environment might be. In a context involving other devices of the same type, the interfaces could be entirely electronic. In a context involving biological neurons, biocompatible interfaces would be necessary. Such interfaces are being developed.

What would that device have to do?

It would have to accept (potentially multiple) input signals (electrical or biochemical) and produce appropriately modulated output signals (electrical or biochemical) for distribution to (potentially multiple) receivers. It would also need the facility to modulate its activity according to additional external 'environmental' signals (e.g. hormonal or electronic). Its behaviour would need to broadly emulate that of any particular biological neuron in terms of the overall input to output transform, timing, exhaustion, refractory period, recovery, habituation, dishabituation, etc. These neuronal behaviours have already been modeled and reproduced in digital systems.

It seems to me that direct interfacing with biological material is the really tricky part; sensors to distinguish neurotransmitters and hormones are feasible, and biocompatible electronic interfaces are being developed, but packaging and installing such a device into an in-vivo context would be a major technical challenge. This wouldn't be a problem in an all-electronic system.

At a higher level, that of neuronal circuits, where specific groups of neurons combine to produce fairly well-defined output from fairly well-defined input (e.g. early and intermediate sensory processing), and where these circuits combine into subsystems, much of the complexity of the individual neurons may be redundant in emulating the overall behaviour of the circuit or subsystem. I suspect much of the processing activity in the brain is like this, which would provide an opportunity for major simplification in an electronic emulation/simulation/imitation/replacement, so that, in practice, full emulation of individual neuron functionality would rarely be required.

I suspect that medical bio-electronic interfaces will probably also operate at the subsystem level.

 

[dlorde]

And what is chemistry? Why is it the way it is here? Why is matter such that there are those elements found on the periodic table, why does water expand when it freezes etc etc...

Science has not answered any of these questions, it has merely discovered a few things about the way matter behaves in our locality.

We don't know why the underlying pattern of nature is the way it is, but we have used that pattern to explain all those things you mentioned. Obviously we can't explain stuff we don't have access to (i.e. that isn't in our locality) and may be different, but all the evidence suggests that as far as we can see, things behave according to those underlying patterns.

 

[dlorde]

Tonight's Horizon programme may be of interest:

Marcus du Sautoy, the Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford, presents Horizon: The Hunt for AI on BBC Two at 21:00 BST on Tuesday 3 April. Watch online afterwards (UK only).

I suspect they'll conclude that human-like intelligence/consciousness is too difficult, and is unnecessary; that we should be considering different, complementary forms of artificial intelligence to assist us in areas we find problematic.

 

[PixyMisa]

And what is chemistry?

It's how elements interact.

Why is it the way it is here?

Fundamentally, it's due to the shape of space. That dictates how many electrons there are in each shell, and that dictates chemical properties.

Why is matter such that there are those elements found on the periodic table

As opposed to elements that aren't on the periodic table?

why does water expand when it freezes etc etc...

The strength of he intermolecular hydrogen bonds means that the lowest energy crystalline structure is less dense than the liquid form.

Science has not answered any of these questions

No, punshhh. Science has answered them. You just haven't looked.

I know you will refer me to some papers on physics, I've already read them.

Evidently not.

You can't say this as no matter has been created in the lab from the models.

What is that even supposed to mean? We have certainly created forms of matter that were previously predicted by theory.

You know the routine now Pixy. You say something that is standing on the shoulders of assumptions and I point out to you that if it is regarding matter (what exists) we are only beginning to scratch the surface of what we are dealing with.

Not at all. You infer that simply because you don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about, nobody else does either. This is not a valid inference, and it's also untrue.

 

[PixyMisa]

How does that answer my post ? You think there is no causal relation between instructions, then you are wrong, plain and simple, or you are using an unrealistic definition of "relation". If you had ever programmed at all, you'd realise that.

Sadly, no. There really are programmers out there - professional programmers, inasmuch as their job title is "programmer" and they actually get paid - who have not the faintest notion how computers work, nor that instructions are causally related.

I've worked with such people. Well, more accurately, I've carefully avoided such people until they took the hint and went into real estate or advertising.

I don't doubt for a moment that Westprog is a programmer.

 

[Leumas]

I think it could be a custom processor (i.e. the same type of technology as current microprocessors). I don't think the behaviour of the device itself would be technically problematic, but interfacing to the local environment might be. In a context involving other devices of the same type, the interfaces could be entirely electronic. In a context involving biological neurons, biocompatible interfaces would be necessary. Such interfaces are being developed.

It would have to accept (potentially multiple) input signals (electrical or biochemical) and produce appropriately modulated output signals (electrical or biochemical) for distribution to (potentially multiple) receivers. It would also need the facility to modulate its activity according to additional external 'environmental' signals (e.g. hormonal or electronic). Its behaviour would need to broadly emulate that of any particular biological neuron in terms of the overall input to output transform, timing, exhaustion, refractory period, recovery, habituation, dishabituation, etc. These neuronal behaviours have already been modeled and reproduced in digital systems.

It seems to me that direct interfacing with biological material is the really tricky part; sensors to distinguish neurotransmitters and hormones are feasible, and biocompatible electronic interfaces are being developed, but packaging and installing such a device into an in-vivo context would be a major technical challenge. This wouldn't be a problem in an all-electronic system.

At a higher level, that of neuronal circuits, where specific groups of neurons combine to produce fairly well-defined output from fairly well-defined input (e.g. early and intermediate sensory processing), and where these circuits combine into subsystems, much of the complexity of the individual neurons may be redundant in emulating the overall behaviour of the circuit or subsystem. I suspect much of the processing activity in the brain is like this, which would provide an opportunity for major simplification in an electronic emulation/simulation/imitation/replacement, so that, in practice, full emulation of individual neuron functionality would rarely be required.

I suspect that medical bio-electronic interfaces will probably also operate at the subsystem level.

There you go..... I agree.

 

[Leumas]

Protip: it's important to be able to support your arguments with more than assertions so...

...how do you know ?

In answer to the above I post this reply

"it's important to be able to support your arguments with more than assertions so...

...how do you know ?"

 

[Leumas]

Westprog, you've admitted you DON'T KNOW how computers work, and say they could never be conscious, so you are arguing from ignorance.

I know exactly how computers work, have been studying how the brain works for a long, long time, and think computers can be programmed to be conscious.

That is my point -- you keep insisting that I should "read a book" or whatever, without ever considering that I am well educated regarding exactly what human science knows about the neuron.

I have no doubt that if you started scanning the internet right now you would come up with facts that I am not familiar with -- I certainly don't know everything. However I seriously doubt that you are currently familiar with any facts that I am not also currently familiar with.

So can you just drop the pretense, and stop using some kind of argument from "more educated authority" in place of actually addressing the issues? Maybe stop the sarcasm, and just address the issues?

We could sit here all day comparing curriculum vitaes (résumés) and see whose is longer, we could also brag about how large our knowledge is.


I probably have just as long a CV if not longer and perhaps just as large an amount of knowledge as you guys if not more. I am not going to brag about it though because I do not need to. This is not a clear cut case of black or white issues. There are many shades of grey and other colors.

The fact is that you THINK current computers with current technology of software and hardware are capable of achieving consciousness.

I do not.

You are conjecturing.

So am I.

But I have reality on my side.... we have no conscious machines so far and most scientists working on the issue agree.

Your CONJECTURES might turn out to be right....mine might....but as measured by the yardstick of current scientific knowledge you come up short on facts supporting your claims.

 

[dlorde]

There you go..... I agree.

Clearly not with me, as you chose to strike out significant parts of my post without explanation.

 

[annnnoid]

Protip: it's important to be able to support your arguments with more than assertions so...

...how do you know ?

In answer to the above I post this reply

"it's important to be able to support your arguments with more than assertions so...

...how do you know ?"

Quite obviously, the burden of proof is upon those making the claim (this isn’t, after all, Computatianity [ie: the religion of computationalism]). The only extant thing that consciousness applies to is us (by default…since we are ‘it’). If the desire is to establish that condition A fundamentally associated with creature B is also present in ‘thing’ C, then it is up to those making the claim to support the argument (which, at this point in the game, is a bit problematic since there currently does not even exist a workable definition for ‘condition A’). Hot air is free though Belz.

 

[punshhh]

Well, science in general will only answer how-questions.

Thus it has been the case that people investing time and energy in translating general why-questions into detailed how-questions have, over time, been able to generate great progress within their field of study, whereas those insisting on staying with why questions seem rather stagnated.

Yes, the why questions will not go away though, or the is questions. These questions are useful in placing our context within existence and in reminding us of our limitations. For example our limited understanding of what it is to be conscious and how to generate it.

 

[punshhh]

It's how elements interact.


Fundamentally, it's due to the shape of space. That dictates how many electrons there are in each shell, and that dictates chemical properties.


As opposed to elements that aren't on the periodic table?


The strength of he intermolecular hydrogen bonds means that the lowest energy crystalline structure is less dense than the liquid form.


No, punshhh. Science has answered them. You just haven't looked.

Yes I know all that, as I said I have considered what science has to say and yet science has not answered them. It has only provided an explanation which fits into current scientific models.

Remember our discussions of energy and of god. Do we now have to go down the same laborious route with existence? Or will you concede that we don't know what existence is or in what ways unknown aspects of existence may or may not have a bearing on what life is or what consciousness is.

Evidently not.

I have sufficient understanding of scientific and mathematical modeling to make this point.

What is that even supposed to mean? We have certainly created forms of matter that were previously predicted by theory.

Science has discovered, measured and manipulated matter in various ways and has some good modeling of its form.

However science has not created matter from the blueprint of those same models and cannot.

Not at all. You infer that simply because you don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about, nobody else does either. This is not a valid inference, and it's also untrue.

I know precisely what I'm talking about.

There are underlying assumptions required for your conscious computer to both exist and be conscious.

 

[rocketdodger]

I am not going to brag about it though because I do not need to.

What you don't seem to realize is that telling people to "read a book" because their understanding is lacking is implicitly bragging about your own level of knowledge.

But I have reality on my side.... we have no conscious machines so far and most scientists working on the issue agree.

Um, as long as you are throwing arguments from authority around, at least be honest please. How many of these "scientists working on the issue" think the current paradigm of computer hardware just will not support consciousness?

Eh?

Can you cite any references that state your own position, that the current paradigm of physically decoupling memory from computation just won't support consciousness, and instead a paradigm similar to that of biological neural networks, where memory and computation seem to be one and the same, is the only way to go?

Eh? Sources?

 

[rocketdodger]

Quite obviously, the burden of proof is upon those making the claim (this isn’t, after all, Computatianity [ie: the religion of computationalism]). The only extant thing that consciousness applies to is us (by default…since we are ‘it’). If the desire is to establish that condition A fundamentally associated with creature B is also present in ‘thing’ C, then it is up to those making the claim to support the argument (which, at this point in the game, is a bit problematic since there currently does not even exist a workable definition for ‘condition A’). Hot air is free though Belz.

Hmmm... if there is no workable definition for condition A, then why are there so many arguments against the specifics of getting a machine to exhibit condition A?

You would think that with "no workable definition" there wouldn't be much middle ground where communication can occur.

I wonder .... could it be that the "no workable definition" is just a cop-out that people use when they realize that the workable definition isn't as special as they thought?

 

[rocketdodger]

Yes I agree, my point though was that the (fundamental) form of matter* and the form of the laws of nature may be such that life is possible. Whereas a kind of matter which merely obeys the mathematically consistent modeling of physicists may not produce life at all.

It *may* not, but if you wanted a confidence value I would put it at like 99%.

That is, I am 99% certain that a kind of matter which merely obeys the mathematically consistent modeling of physicists is enough for life to be possible.

Life is different because of how it behaves according to those mathematically consistent rules, not because it needs some special rules in the first place.