Explain consciousness to the layman.

[dlorde]

Here's a simple test - if you can change the order of instructions without changing the outcome of a program, then you can legitimately assume that there is no causal relationship between said instructions.

For example?

I'm wondering about the precise definition of 'instruction' you're using...

 

[dlorde]

Clearly, the two fragments are equivalent in their outcome. The first and second instructions have no causal relationship. They could, if wished, be executed simultaneously on parallel processors. The result of the third instruction will be affected by the first two.

OK, you're talking about high-level language instructions. I'm sure you're aware that such high-level constructs are effectively an abstracted shorthand that are compiled or interpreted, eventually leading to a number of low-level processor instructions that do have direct causal relationship; even when parallelism is involved, causally related successive processor instructions are necessary to fork, establish new contexts, join, etc.

Not sure I recall what the point of all this was, but that example really doesn't support your argument.

 

[Mr. Scott]

This is fairly interesting.

Along with something at least close to "measurable" it provides decent working definitions for things like emotions.

http://www.consscale.com/en/levels/description.html

Mr. Scott "likes."

I was wondering at which number did the magic bean of consciousness evolve? You know, that thing that science can never observe?

I just loved this part of the exchange between Dennett and Wright. I will paraphrase:

Dennett: Suppose you had an automobile that insisted that there were seven gremlins in each of its cylinders, and that these gremlins were undetectable with any imaginable type of measuring device, and didn't affect the performance of the engine in any way, didn't add any horsepower, nothing. We only have the testimony of the engine that they exist but are outside the purview of science. It's a view that is not to be taken seriously, right?

Wright: It's doesn't seem likely to be true.

(later)

Dennett: I take on the burden of explaining why you have the intuition [that there's some phenomenon in consciousness that is outside the purview of science] and I think I can give a pretty good explanation of why it seems that way to you...

Wright: Well, I don't want to hear THAT.

Well I DO want to hear THAT, and what I keep going back to is Wright's refusal to LISTEN to Dennett's view. That also needs 'splaining.

Back to the OT: We can just explain to laymen that some believe consciousness is a very complicated, though nevertheless mechanical process, and some believe it requires some mysterious element outside the purview of science.

But like the gremlins in the car's cylinders, the magic bean of consciousness is intrinsically defined in such a way that the debate about it's existence can never be settled.

 

[westprog]

OK, you're talking about high-level language instructions. I'm sure you're aware that such high-level constructs are effectively an abstracted shorthand that are compiled or interpreted, eventually leading to a number of low-level processor instructions that do have direct causal relationship; even when parallelism is involved, causally related successive processor instructions are necessary to fork, establish new contexts, join, etc.

Not sure I recall what the point of all this was, but that example really doesn't support your argument.

MOV 1,R3
MOV 2,R4
ADD R3,R4

or

MOV 2, R4
MOV 1, R3
ADD R3,R4

That's assembly language where the order of instructions can be changed without altering the result. That's as low level as you can get.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

MOV 2, R4
ADD R3,R4
MOV 1, R3

You're right, instruction order doesn't make any difference whatsoever.

 

[annnnoid]

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?

I suppose it depends what is meant by ‘workable definition’. If its ‘workability’ is nothing more than a function of others ability to establish that it’s wrong…then sure, you’ve got yourself a workable definition. I refer to the following quote (presented earlier in the thread) for my conclusions about a workable definition of consciousness:

"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."

Since these conclusions were confirmed by just about every cognitive scientist I emailed the quote to (a few weeks back), I have to conclude that this represents the status quo.

Simple models are impractical…and accurate models are impossible to comprehend. This thread is littered with simple models masquerading as accurate ones. Maybe ignorance is a variety of insecurity that some cannot stomach.

As for the idea that this position ('no workable definition') is nothing more than a smokescreen to hide some kind of innate insecurity (...'you mean I'm not special ?!?!??!)…I think the case is actually the exact opposite. I think the issue is that there are many who simply cannot abide that there is, in fact, something very special about consciousness and will go to any lengths to diminish it (… "Anyway, why is a finely-engineered machine of wire and silicon less likely to be conscious than two pounds of warm meat?" Pixy Misa ). There often seems to be an immense discomfort with having to face the unconditional fact that something as fundamental and significant…and personal…as consciousness is simply not understood…especially to this degree.

From what I can see there is every reason to believe that consciousness is, in fact, very special. Dennet has described it as the last remaining mystery (why?). Heutel has described the brain as the most complex object in the known universe (Pixy’s valiant attempts to ascribe some kind of coherent identity to the internet not-with-standing). There are those who (not unreasonably) conclude that the issue is unique in all of science in that it cannot, in fact, be resolved (why?). Consciousness itself has been described as either the biggest or one of the biggest unanswered questions in science. Hardly sounds ‘not special’ to me.

…and then we have those who insist that their thermostat is conscious. Maybe different people are talking about different things…or, as that quote seems to indicate…we just don’t know what we’re talking about. Sounds kind of medieval doesn’t it…for a scientist to have to admit such a degree of ignorance....especially when it seems to implicate their own identity!

 

[annnnoid]

Well, I'm a programmer and I have no clue about electronics. But I know how computer programs operate. Westprog doesn't.

.....???????????....hmmmm.....

Maybe you just need a vacation. I know this great place in southern Georgia. Don't know if I'll get there myself but I'm thinkin we can all use a change of perspective now and then.

 

[rocketdodger]

This thread is littered with simple models masquerading as accurate ones.

Even something as "simple" as pixy's "self reference using a few dozen transistors" is more complex than 99% of the population is capable of understanding on their own.

And I certainly don't agree that the other things discussed, like chess-playing AI searching the game space, artificial neural network topologies like functrons and bolztmann machines, logical inference rules, and any other real AI topic, are "simple."

Furthermore any of the recent implementations of things like the global workspace model are extremely complicated.

So what I think you mean is that this thread is littered with models that some readers interpret as "simple" when they do not understand them, and ask "yeah but can the computer write poetry?" and when the answer is "no" they just scoff and joke.

However, computers can write poetry:

The pig go. Go is to the fountain. The pig put foot. Grunt. Foot in what? ketchup. The dove fly. Fly is in sky. The dove drop something. The something on the pig. The pig disgusting. The pig rattle. Rattle with dove. The dove angry. The pig leave. The dove produce. Produce is chicken wing. With wing bark. No Quack.

from http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Classic-WTF-No-Quack.aspx

 

[PixyMisa]

Yes I know all that

No you don't. I just told you again and you still don't.

 

[westprog]

MOV 2, R4
ADD R3,R4
MOV 1, R3

You're right, instruction order doesn't make any difference whatsoever.

If faced with two interpretations of a statement, it's a good idea to choose one which makes sense.

Clearly, it's not possible to shuffle instructions randomly and get the same result. However, it is possible to shuffle some instructions, or perform them at the same time. In languages such as OCCAM, being able to write instructions in parallel is a basic language construct. This seems to imply that a view that each instruction is a result of its predecessor isn't the best way to look at things. Considering the instructions as data can be more productive.

 

[Toontown]

104 pages...

Has consciousness been explained to the layman yet? Has work on the project begun? Scanning the last page, I don't get the impression that much has been accomplished.

Someone will contact CNN when the task has been completed, right?

 

[Leumas]

The desperate need for nothing about human beings to be "special" doesn't mean that it's possible to claim the ability to program thoughts, memories, feelings and sensations, when nobody knows how to do that.



No, it's the "I'm an expert on this subject therefore I am right and you are wrong argument".

I'd prefer to see expertise demonstrated rather than asserted. I'm regularly amused to see how much effort some people put into trying to debunk other people's backgrounds and assert their own. Amazing how many people posting here seem to be simultaneously trained biologists, neurologists, AI programmers and philosophers. It means they can just post
and expect to be believed.

Do not forget expertise in science fiction to boot.

 

[annnnoid]

Even something as "simple" as pixy's "self reference using a few dozen transistors" is more complex than 99% of the population is capable of understanding on their own.

And I certainly don't agree that the other things discussed, like chess-playing AI searching the game space, artificial neural network topologies like functrons and bolztmann machines, logical inference rules, and any other real AI topic, are "simple."

Furthermore any of the recent implementations of things like the global workspace model are extremely complicated.

So what I think you mean is that this thread is littered with models that some readers interpret as "simple" when they do not understand them, and ask "yeah but can the computer write poetry?" and when the answer is "no" they just scoff and joke.

However, computers can write poetry:

from http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Classic-WTF-No-Quack.aspx

No….what I mean is in terms of what Heutel said….and complex is obviously relative… which probably goes some way to explaining why just about every cognitive scientist I questioned about that quote completely agreed with it. What does it matter if 99% of the people don’t understand what you or Pixy are talking about? What matters is if those who do understand agree with you. Apparently they don’t. I certainly wouldn’t challenge your assertion that it makes for some lively discussions though.

…and it’s not just a matter of writing poetry (which a computer cannot do, but that’s a topic for another time)…but of understanding it. My brother works in translation. I asked him recently what are the chances that any client would accept a computer translated product (just basic written translation). Zero….without any qualification what-so-ever. No client ever has, no client ever does, and he doesn’t see that changing. Before he worked in translation, he worked in IT. Magic beans may score a lot of laughing points, but they sure seem to be a difficult nut to crack.

You computationlists have only yourselves to blame for this constant suspicion. You’re constantly making outlandish claims with little or no substantiation (computers can be programmed to have feelings…how easy can it be to make such claims?). I had all this out with Pixy on a thread a while back where he insisted that fMRI currently has the capacity to measure everything that a human being can cognitively experience (it’s in black and white Pixy…). After endless challenges I eventually had to get a written opinion from the head of a well-known cog sci faculty that described what ‘reality’ actually is (very very very far from ‘everything’). As I said, it often seems more like computatianity than computationilism.

 

[PixyMisa]

104 pages...

Has consciousness been explained to the layman yet? Has work on the project begun? Scanning the last page, I don't get the impression that much has been accomplished.

Someone will contact CNN when the task has been completed, right?

It's easier to travel to the Moon than it is to convince some people that it's possible in the first place.

 

[annnnoid]

104 pages...

Has consciousness been explained to the layman yet? Has work on the project begun? Scanning the last page, I don't get the impression that much has been accomplished.

Someone will contact CNN when the task has been completed, right?

Something that is not understood cannot be explained. If they insist... ' it is you...ask yourself '.

What is interesting…what could actually be described as the proverbial e l e p h a n t in the room (an issue which typically receives little attention from either the biological or computation sides)…is 1) why is it not understood (it is, after all, you and me….we don’t need an electron microscope to illuminate it or a LHC to study it or a degree in advanced mathematics to interpret it…it is right here and now for each and every one of us) …and 2) what are the implications / consequences of this ignorance. Maybe there's more to this story.

 

[punshhh]

Something that is not understood cannot be explained. If they insist... ' it is you...ask yourself '.

What is interesting…what could actually be described as the proverbial e l e p h a n t in the room (an issue which typically receives little attention from either the biological or computation sides)…is 1) why is it not understood (it is, after all, you and me….we don’t need an electron microscope to illuminate it or a LHC to study it or a degree in advanced mathematics to interpret it…it is right here and now for each and every one of us) …and 2) what are the implications / consequences of this ignorance. Maybe there's more to this story.

Quite, it looks like its a case of they can't see the wood for the trees.

Consciousness is everything in our world, everything passes through it to be known and experienced. Science, maths, poetry etc, are narratives experienced through it. Without consciousness such narratives would not exist.
We have no idea what the relationship is between consciousness and matter. Yes matter behaves like particles bouncing around obeying the the laws of physics. But this is not necessarily what is happening, it only appears that way through the prism of consciousness, through which all else passes.

It is so that the physical world inhabited by scientists and computationalists can be regarded as a reliable, persistent, even solid reality, a physical reality. But if one takes a closer look the only part of it which can be known and understood is that bit experienced through consciousness, nothing else.

For example, what is this matter, this energy, this time, this space, this existence? What is here, extension, now, the moment. What is its opposite, what is nothing if there is or could be such a thing. Or what is outside time, lack of time, or non existence.
etc, etc, etc...

There are also the where questions and the why questions and the unknown unknowns.

At the end of the day there are only two things we can know with any degree of certainty, 1 that something exists and 2 that we exist to know about it.

Anything else that we could know is reliant on assumptions upon assumptions and the story (or history) of conscious experience.

It is always worth remembering this basic philosophical stance when speculating on such fundamental issues as the human predicament.

 

[punshhh]

and some believe it requires some mysterious element outside the purview of science.

I presume you are referring to me here, anyway I just want to pin down my position with regard to mysterious elements.

I am not invoking mysterious elements when I refer to my magic bean. Although I am pointing out that such elements may be involved, who knows.

I am suggesting that the entire laws of nature (approximated to by the laws of physics) to which existence is subject are for whatever reason set up or tweaked, or modified so that life can emerge.

We don't know if this is or is not the case for we don't have another existence to compare it with.

 

[Leumas]

104 pages...

Has consciousness been explained to the layman yet? Has work on the project begun? Scanning the last page, I don't get the impression that much has been accomplished.

Someone will contact CNN when the task has been completed, right?

PixyMisa claims he habitually produces consciousness in ordinary computers by writing easy programs himself.

He however thinks that this is so unremarkable as to warrant no media attention whatsoever and thus no CNN notification is justified.

Moreover, many here, despite thinking that his idea is "monumentally simplistic" and "of no practical value", they continue to think that he is basically sound with a slight modification of their own. They think that all we are is a powerful computer, and all that is needed is just to monumentally un-simplify Pixy's simplistic programs in addition to few more transistors and we will have conscious laptops for sure.

Ah...and it is all so simple because consciousness has already been achieved in "worlds of simulations" inside computers running video games like SIMM....if you're only able to accept that there are RELATIVE REALITIES and not be so narrow minded as to limit yourself to this reality of ours.

So SIMM-CNN has already been aware of it but they too cannot believe in the DEOS EX MACHINA that programmed them.

 

[tsig]

Quite, it looks like its a case of they can't see the wood for the trees.

Consciousness is everything in our world, everything passes through it to be known and experienced. Science, maths, poetry etc, are narratives experienced through it. Without consciousness such narratives would not exist.
We have no idea what the relationship is between consciousness and matter. Yes matter behaves like particles bouncing around obeying the the laws of physics. But this is not necessarily what is happening, it only appears that way through the prism of consciousness, through which all else passes.

It is so that the physical world inhabited by scientists and computationalists can be regarded as a reliable, persistent, even solid reality, a physical reality. But if one takes a closer look the only part of it which can be known and understood is that bit experienced through consciousness, nothing else.

For example, what is this matter, this energy, this time, this space, this existence? What is here, extension, now, the moment. What is its opposite, what is nothing if there is or could be such a thing. Or what is outside time, lack of time, or non existence.
etc, etc, etc...

There are also the where questions and the why questions and the unknown unknowns.

At the end of the day there are only two things we can know with any degree of certainty, 1 that something exists and 2 that we exist to know about it.

Anything else that we could know is reliant on assumptions upon assumptions and the story (or history) of conscious experience.

It is always worth remembering this basic philosophical stance when speculating on such fundamental issues as the human predicament.

Argument from ignorance.

 

[dlorde]

That's assembly language where the order of instructions can be changed without altering the result. That's as low level as you can get.

OK, apart from the execution of the instruction resulting in an implicit (or explicit) change to the instruction pointer, thus causing the subsequently addressed instruction to be executed, I accept that there can be two successive instructions where the execution of the first doesn't influence the execution of the second (except by causing it to be executed).

So, what was the point of this?