Explain consciousness to the layman.

[rocketdodger]

Calculation is not mathematics just as a dictionary is not language.

This is a false dichotomy.

A dictionary contains the atomic strings that all language can be reduced to.

What you should have said is something like "the simplest ideas that went into the axioms of mathematics is not mathematics." Well, of course not !

 

[keyfeatures]

Of course that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, because there is no computer capable of connecting those dots like we have. However, there are computers capable of connecting a few very fundamental dots, and I don't see why connecting lots of dots is qualitatively different from connecting a few dots.

The way new 'dots' are connected is due to the fact we don't observe 'reality' but rather observe the human sense-content interpretation of reality. And computers do not have that sense-content reference. They are rocks with binary algorithms. We are rocks with binary algorithms and something else - which means we draw distinctions differently. The distinctions - and therefore the relations - are subjective results of sense-content data. You can input those observations as different (computable) data but you can't get the computer to make them in the first place.

Turing was right in that a machine can do any sort of calculation. But calculation is not the sum total of knowledge discovery.

 

[keyfeatures]

This is a false dichotomy.

A dictionary contains the atomic strings that all language can be reduced to.

What you should have said is something like "the simplest ideas that went into the axioms of mathematics is not mathematics." Well, of course not !

No it doesn't. Because language continually evolves in use and a dictionary is a freeze frame. Words contain meanings that are not in the dictionary. Plus there's grammar, which can be ignored and meaning can still be conveyed.

I actually meant to say what I said. Calculation is not mathematics. I'm not talking about axioms. The real mathematics occurs prior to the calculation.

 

[keyfeatures]

In fact this weekend I will mediate on it and hopefully by Monday I might have something like a high-level description for an algorithm that could do it. Whether or not such an algorithm is feasible to implement is another story.

This will prove nothing in terms of the capability of a computer to generate the proof, since it's you doing the meditation.

 

[Pulvinar]

This will prove nothing in terms of the capability of a computer to generate the proof, since it's you doing the meditation.

Actually it's his teachers doing the meditation. No, wait, it's his teacher's teachers. No, wait...

 

[westprog]

No it doesn't. Because language continually evolves in use and a dictionary is a freeze frame. Words contain meanings that are not in the dictionary. Plus there's grammar, which can be ignored and meaning can still be conveyed.

The net informational content of the dictionary is nil, since it just defines words in terms of other words. You need to know the meaning of the words before you can use a dictionary usefully.

I actually meant to say what I said. Calculation is not mathematics. I'm not talking about axioms. The real mathematics occurs prior to the calculation.

Calculation is the least important part of mathematics.

 

[keyfeatures]

The net informational content of the dictionary is nil, since it just defines words in terms of other words. You need to know the meaning of the words before you can use a dictionary usefully.

Exactly - apart from which tautologies operate between symbols. 'Meaning' is to do with relationships to sense-contents / experience - which is why it's tricky to pin down the meaning of words that don't directly relate to such (god, consciousness). Non sense will always be tautologically nonsense.

 

[westprog]

Exactly - apart from which tautologies operate between symbols. 'Meaning' is to do with relationships to sense-contents / experience - which is why it's tricky to pin down the meaning of words that don't directly relate to such (god, consciousness). Non sense will always be tautologically nonsense.

Manipulation of symbols without meaning being externally assigned will always be an empty process.

 

[PixyMisa]

That's because you are using the term 'proof' incorrectly. The proof is in deciding how to generate the algorithm. The computer doesn't decide how to generate the algorithm. A computer could not invent a proof for the existence of infinite primes, for example. It's not an autopoietic, evolving system.

Computers - actually, computer programs - are already generating mathematical proofs and constructing and testing scientific hypotheses. All mathematical proofs that can be constructed, can be constructed algorithmically, so claiming that the proof is explicit in the algorithm just because it is an algorithm is bizarrely reductionistic.

 

[rocketdodger]

No it doesn't. Because language continually evolves in use and a dictionary is a freeze frame. Words contain meanings that are not in the dictionary. Plus there's grammar, which can be ignored and meaning can still be conveyed.

Ok, but when you said "dictionary" I didn't think you meant an actual copy of the websters dictionary from 2005. I assumed you meant "a collection of definitions, that convey the meaning of complex words in terms of simpler words."

I actually meant to say what I said. Calculation is not mathematics. I'm not talking about axioms. The real mathematics occurs prior to the calculation.

Neither is walking to the store the statement "I am walking to the store."

So what ? I don't understand what your point is here.

 

[rocketdodger]

The way new 'dots' are connected is due to the fact we don't observe 'reality' but rather observe the human sense-content interpretation of reality. And computers do not have that sense-content reference.

And robots are different how? Their observations are limited to percepts that are just as far removed from their referrents as ours are.

We are rocks with binary algorithms and something else - which means we draw distinctions differently.

Ok I see where this is gonna go now. The magic bean. Next you are going to say some fancy sounding stuff that doesn't make logical sense...

The distinctions - and therefore the relations - are subjective results of sense-content data.

Yep, there we go. What does that mean? "Subjective results of sense-content data?"

 

[rocketdodger]

The net informational content of the dictionary is nil, since it just defines words in terms of other words.

I am not sure the above statement has any informational content, actually. Certainly I cannot parse it.

You need to know the meaning of the words before you can use a dictionary usefully.

And?

Everyone that has taken even a remedial class in logic knows that all knowledge proceeds from axioms that cannot be reduced further. Pointing to a knowledge base and saying "ahah, but see, you need the axioms first to make sense of it!" is the sort of thing that kids respond to with "no duh."

 

[rocketdodger]

Manipulation of symbols without meaning being externally assigned will always be an empty process.

Half correct.

The meaning can be internally assigned as well.

So the correct version is "Manipulation of symbols without meaning being internally or externally assigned will always be an empty process."

Again, my response would be that this is obvious. Why did you feel the need to even state it?

 

[Jeff Corey]

The layman is still waiting.

 

[PixyMisa]

Half correct.

The meaning can be internally assigned as well.

But more significantly, meaning is the manipulation of symbols.

So it reduces to "Manipulation of symbols without the manipulation will always be an empty process."

And we're all, like, duh.

 

[Mr. Scott]

The problem with how we think about consciousness

One of our problems is a lot of people initially define "consciousness" as some magical, sparkly field, and from that draw the conclusion that no machine could duplicate it.

This definition, which is purely intuitive (delusional?), is the problem. Consciousness only seems like a magical sparkly field FROM INSIDE IT. There's no evidence of its magicaly sparkliness from the outside.

Its analysis runs in exactly the same path as any other woo or religious assertion.

For example:

- Ghosts are real. Ghosts are not confirmed by science. Ghosts therefore have an immaterial quality outside the purview of science.

- God is real. No god has been confirmed by science. Therefore, science does not have the power to detect god.

- Consciousness is a magical force field. We can think of no way machines could produce this magical force field. Therefore, consciousness is a magical force field which cannot be simulated, emulated, or produced by any machine.

We have to be more skeptical of the starting assumption. Consciousness only SEEMS like a magical force field from the inside. It is an illusion we are reluctant to let die. We want to feel special.

 

[keyfeatures]

Computers - actually, computer programs - are already generating mathematical proofs

No, they are generating demonstrations/consequences. There's mathematics that occurs before the demonstration. Human brains aren't Turing machines. Well, not entirely. There are more than two values making us tick.

 

[!Kaggen]

One of our problems is a lot of people initially define "consciousness" as some magical, sparkly field, and from that draw the conclusion that no machine could duplicate it.

This definition, which is purely intuitive (delusional?), is the problem. Consciousness only seems like a magical sparkly field FROM INSIDE IT. There's no evidence of its magicaly sparkliness from the outside.

Its analysis runs in exactly the same path as any other woo or religious assertion.

For example:

- Ghosts are real. Ghosts are not confirmed by science. Ghosts therefore have an immaterial quality outside the purview of science.

- God is real. No god has been confirmed by science. Therefore, science does not have the power to detect god.

- Consciousness is a magical force field. We can think of no way machines could produce this magical force field. Therefore, consciousness is a magical force field which cannot be simulated, emulated, or produced by any machine.

We have to be more skeptical of the starting assumption. Consciousness only SEEMS like a magical force field from the inside. It is an illusion we are reluctant to let die. We want to feel special.

Nice Strawman.

When we did not understand how humans worked we said they were machines.
You will find that as we fill in the gaps of our knowledge of humans we don't use this silly description anymore as it has become meaningless. As the empirical evidence accumulates so we invent better words for this evidence. We can't keep calling the things we discover "a machine". How would we differentiate between evidence.

You see there is no such "thing" as a machine. It is an abstraction we use to class " things".
Things are what we call them to differentiate them from other things.
These names have meanings/associations which when added up differentiate the thing from every other thing.
This is what science is supposed to do. Discover the difference between things.

So when you say what the brain does is consciousness and since the brain is a machine we can make a machine that does what a brain does. You are about as up to date as Galen. It is revealing that none of this has happened since Galen.

No, we have much more words for what the brain does by now.

Thanks for the thought that the brain is a machine it was interesting but not for long.

Thanks for the thought that any thing other than a machine was a machine.

It's wrong and it's time to move one.

You'll let me know when you discover a modern professional neuroscientists who describes what they discover as a machine.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

The way new 'dots' are connected is due to the fact we don't observe 'reality' but rather observe the human sense-content interpretation of reality. And computers do not have that sense-content reference.

This argument comes up once in a while, as if there’s reality on the one hand and then something else (like interpretation of reality, or our observation of human sense-content etc.). But … How do you know to make such distinction?

Another observer observing you observing your sense-content interpretation, does not have to make such distinction between reality and interpretation of it. Semantics for you remains as syntax from another viewpoint.

Obviously we can go on to yet another observer observing the observer observing you. But that’s also irrelevant. It only serves to furthermore point out the relative nature of meaning (and how it can be registered as syntax from another systemic viewpoint).

 

[keyfeatures]

And robots are different how? Their observations are limited to percepts that are just as far removed from their referrents as ours are.

A robot is a tool not an observer. Its perception and calculation only has meaning when filtered through human observation. It doesn't observe for itself. Therefore, the robot cannot be considered a subjective observer any more than a hammer can be considered subjective. Two humans observing is effectively one observer since each one's sense-contents can be communicated as if that of the other. A cow and a human is two observers. The cow observes but we can't ask it to explain the meaning it finds from its observations.