Explain consciousness to the layman.

[Jeff Corey]

That seems a fair summary of the reasoning.

• Humans are conscious.
  
• Humans are not special.
  
• Therefore other things must be conscious as well.
  
• Why not computers? They sort of think too, don't they?

I've been following this discussion for a long time now and that's what it mostly seems to reduce to. And it seems to be sufficient evidence for a lot of people.

That only works if you define "conscious" and "special" in a very special way.

 

[westprog]

This may be of interest (I don't recall seeing a previous link to it):
The Development and Analysis of Conscious Machines.

“If nothing were more basic to us than consciousness, there
would be nothing more basic in terms of which we could explain consciousness. All we could do then is try to make consciousness more comprehensible by eliciting a sense of the phenomena in a variety of different ways.”

I had assumed that someone else had noticed this, but hadn't seen it expressed before.

 

[annnnoid]

For people to say "we don't know what consciousness is or how it is created" doesn't mean "it could be anything at all, and even magical beans could create it." It means within the framework of what we already know about the universe.

I am willing to bet most of these "cognitive scientists" will agree that yes, we are made of particles and yes, we come from a sperm and an egg, so any explanation of consciousness that falls outside those well established constraints is probably wrong.

It’s not a matter of it being ‘anything at all’…it’s a matter of it being something singularly unique…in ways that are all-but-impossible to describe or comprehend (thus the lack of a definition and Dennet’s description of it as the last remaining mystery). This is the actual situation. And it most indisputably does not have to be a function of what we already know about the universe if for no other reason than what we already know about the universe has yet to explain it (or itself for that matter).

…particles + sperm + egg does not = an explanation for what we are or where we come from…it is merely a description. And by ‘we’ I am referring to consciousness = human being (we).

As for your ulterior motives re AI….knock yourself out. I think it’s safe to say that if you are ever successful in either of these endeavors (hyper-extending and / or ‘uploading’ life) you will discover that the results are very different than what you were expecting. Just don’t go deciding you’ve created a ‘conscious entity’ before you can say you know what ‘consciousness’ actually is (and since you are, in fact, ‘consciousness’….why don’t you….know?). After all…what does ‘experiencing existence’ actually mean? How and why are relationships ‘meaningful’? No doubt being alive is the odds on favorite to not being alive…but just because you’re alive doesn’t mean you’re living!

Everything is different to what it isn't the same thing as.

….this is a thing of beauty! I wouldn’t compare it to Euler…but still…

 

[dlorde]

That only works if you define "conscious" and "special" in a very special way.

It's an illogical strawman however you define 'conscious' and 'special'.

 

[Jeff Corey]

The ones I could think of all begged the question. Well, pleaded, at least.

 

[westprog]

That only works if you define "conscious" and "special" in a very special way.

It doesn't work at all, really. There's a scientific case to be made for computers working in some way like the brain - but it's debatable case, and it's very far from certain that the brain really does work like a computer. The metaphysical case is based on shaming materialists into falling in line, for fear of giving support to improper ideas.

 

[westprog]

So, the elements formed together to form the first living organism. This much I understand, but what about consciousness? This is never really explained, besides "neurons firing together in the brain" to form it, but this explanation never goes further than that when I hear it.

I know this question has probably already been asked in a more eloquent and intelligent way, but that's why the title has the word layman in it. I also ask, because theists or people in the new age mind set usually put a lot of emphases on consciousness as proof of their beliefs. I want to know how it can be explained by physical laws.

Just to return to the OP - would it seem from the lengthy discussion since this post that consciousness is defined and understood, and that there is a consensus among the informed, or that it is poorly defined, not well understood, and that there is considerable controversy even among the people supposedly most expert?

 

[PixyMisa]

You certainly do have a dualism, by the back door.

Ew.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Westprog: I don't know. I haven't seen a satisfacory definition.

 

[AlBell]

I hate to sound like westprog, but can you please provide an objective definition for "logical" or "symbolic" computation that doesn't include "physical" computation?

At some lowest level, leptons, baryons, and bosons dance to the laws of physics and chance.

In sentient critters, at some point 'symbols' with meaning emerge, and for humans at least that's the level we work at. The lowest level can be safely ignored other than as providing a source of energy to keep the brain (and body) functional. Thence follows chemistry, rna, dna, and life. Where neurons fit in there is yet sfaik poorly determined.

In humans the symbol for "I-ness" emerges early in life -- "my" body, "my" arms, "my" legs, etc -- which is constantly updated with other symbols -- ouch that hurts, mmm that's good (unfortunately too often sugars, carbs, fat, etc), yecch that's bad (orange peels, banana peels, whatever), socially acceptable or unacceptable, etc.

Imo, once we understand the underlying techniques needed to examine reality at symbol level, conscious and intelligent computers may become a fact. Some appear to propose neurons are the correct level; I and others here as yet don't appear to agree.

Note there are no magic beans in there.

 

[AlBell]

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

Just accept it as others here are expected accept Pixy's NO's as adequate responses.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Soory, don't know what that has to do with what I posted.

It is exactly the same argument. Penrose/Lucas argue that since humans have access to mathematical truth that cannot be gleemed using any algorithm, our brains must not follow an algorithm.

And it fails in exactly the same way -- we don't have intuitive access to mathematical truth, we have access to what we think is mathematical truth, and the latter can certainly be gleemed using an algorithm.

But by disagreeing with me are you saying you believe "a brain in a vat" questioning whether it's a brain in a vat might still be only a brain in a vat?

If so... from where does such knowledge of an external reality (outside the vat) originate?

But it isn't knowledge of an external reality, that is what I am telling you. It is knowledge about the reality of the vat ( which is the reality the brain perceives ), combined with some imagination/extrapolation, to form what the brain thinks an external reality might be like, were there to be an external reality outside of its own.

Think about it -- you are in a space the shape of a cube with no exits. In the space with you is a dollhouse, except there is no roof on the dollhouse and no ceiling to any of the rooms in it, so you can see inside. There is also a room in the dollhouse with no doors, and a little plastic character that looks like you. We can throw in a mirror as well, so you can see what you look like.

Do you need to have any knowledge of what is outside your space, or whether there even is more to your reality besides your space, to just look at the dollhouse and notice the similarities? A space in the dollhouse, which you immediately notice is a room, has the same shape as the space you are in. There is a representation of a humanoid in that space, which you notice looks sort of like you ( because you know what you look like thanks to the mirror we provided ). No -- you don't need any knowledge of what is outside, you can simply look at what you have in front of you and extrapolate.

Furthermore, any conjectures you make have no relationship with what is actually outside your space. Zero. Because you have no access to what is outside your space. If one of your conjectures happens to match what is outside your space, that is just luck, and you don't even have a way to confirm it, because you have no access to what is outside your space.

Make a long story short, Keanu... you are saying we are unable to determine whether we are just brains in a vat?

 

[rocketdodger]

At some lowest level, leptons, baryons, and bosons dance to the laws of physics and chance.

In sentient critters, at some point 'symbols' with meaning emerge, and for humans at least that's the level we work at. The lowest level can be safely ignored other than as providing a source of energy to keep the brain (and body) functional. Thence follows chemistry, rna, dna, and life. Where neurons fit in there is yet sfaik poorly determined.

In humans the symbol for "I-ness" emerges early in life -- "my" body, "my" arms, "my" legs, etc -- which is constantly updated with other symbols -- ouch that hurts, mmm that's good (unfortunately too often sugars, carbs, fat, etc), yecch that's bad (orange peels, banana peels, whatever), socially acceptable or unacceptable, etc.

I don't disagree with any of that.

What I disagree with is piggy coming up with some nonsense about "physical" computation -- 3 sheep in your backyard plus 4 sheep in your backyard equal 7 sheep in your backyard ( huh ? ) -- versus "symbolic" computation, which he hasn't even defined except to say that it is "when you add 3 and 4 in a calculator" or some baloney, and trying to pass it off as commonly understood fact in completely made up arguments about why things happening in calculators are fundamentally different from things happening in backyards.

Imo, once we understand the underlying techniques needed to examine reality at symbol level, conscious and intelligent computers may become a fact. Some appear to propose neurons are the correct level; I and others here as yet don't appear to agree.

Again, I don't disagree with that.

What I disagree with are armchair/weekend experts making flawed arguments about this or that based on some skewed notions of "symbolic" logic that they cooked up in their heads, and then categorically refusing to even consider that they don't know what they are talking about.

Did you try to follow the argument between piggy and yy2bggggs about symbols and our perception of our big toe? One of the most painful things I have witnessed in a long time.

 

[rocketdodger]

Make a long story short, Keanu... you are saying we are unable to determine whether we are just brains in a vat?

Half correct.

There may be a way to determine that we are brains in vats, at least as far as we can determine anything else about our reality, and certainly a technician running the vat lab could try to convince us by just communicating like God from the heavens or whatever, or even hooking up our perception to a camera in the vat lab and saying "see this is you, just a brain."

But there is no way to confirm that we are not brains in vats.

As a corollary, if we figured out that we were indeed brains in vats, we could not confirm that the vat lab was not also just the imagination of another brain in a vat, and so on and so forth.

In terms of simulations, even if you could "escape" to the external reality, there is no way to be sure that you are at the very top level I.E. the "true" reality.

Note that this doesn't change anything with regard to what we know of reality, it is just philosophical musing.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Make a long story short, Keanu... you are saying we are unable to determine whether we are just brains in a vat?

Half correct.

There may be a way to determine that we are brains in vats, at least as far as we can determine anything else about our reality, and certainly a technician running the vat lab could try to convince us by just communicating like God from the heavens or whatever, or even hooking up our perception to a camera in the vat lab and saying "see this is you, just a brain."

But there is no way to confirm that we are not brains in vats.

As a corollary, if we figured out that we were indeed brains in vats, we could not confirm that the vat lab was not also just the imagination of another brain in a vat, and so on and so forth.

In terms of simulations, even if you could "escape" to the external reality, there is no way to be sure that you are at the very top level I.E. the "true" reality.

Note that this doesn't change anything with regard to what we know of reality, it is just philosophical musing.

Thanks.

Though I'm not sure what saying "thanks" actually means as it now seems what might have been considered communication between us via an externally-shared language has been called into question.

 

[!Kaggen]

Lets just get to the heart of the issue -- would you, or would you not, rather they were still alive?

That is really all that needs asking.

And I don't even need to see your answer to know that the vast majority of people on this planet will always say "I would rather they were still alive."

So to sit there and proclaim that extending life isn't a noble cause is just so disingenuous as to be comical. Anyone that says that, I would like to see them repeat it when their loved ones are about to die, or when they themselves are on their deathbead.

"Yeah, if I had a choice, I wouldn't want even an hour more out of life" Nonsense. Utter nonsense.

Tell me RD when you see people doing this kind of thing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3Ih91PsZt4&sns=em

Do you think they are wanting to live forever?

 

[Brainache]

Thanks.

Though I'm not sure what saying "thanks" actually means as it now seems what might have been considered communication between us via an externally-shared language has been called into question.

And if you are a brain in a vat, that would all be part of the illusion. Just like it is for us...

 

[tsig]

Make a long story short, Keanu... you are saying we are unable to determine whether we are just brains in a vat?

If we are unable to determine whether we are just brains in a vat then what difference does it make?

 

[Frank Newgent]

If we are unable to determine whether we are just brains in a vat then what difference does it make?

Any particular thought of a brain in a vat can not be about any thing at all, of course.

Explains your post nicely.

 

[tsig]

Any particular thought of a brain in a vat can not be about any thing at all, of course.

Explains your post nicely.

Not much of a brain if it can't think.