Explain consciousness to the layman.

[Leumas]

Lol, that made me laugh.

I guess you missed the part where I said "natural," eh?
Because air conditioners are made by a certain living species ...

I looked over the post I responded to and I could not find the word “natural” anywhere in it. So naturally I missed it because it was not even there.

Here is the post again…… please show me where you said “natural” in it.

Talk about a shady, misleading post.

The claim isn't that life is unique because it decreases local entropy. That is your own strawman.

The claim is that life is unique because it consistently reacts to increases in entropy with decreases in local entropy.

Any other systems behave like that, westprog?

I guess you must be moving the goal posts again, eh?

You asked for a system that “consistently reacts to increases in entropy with decreases in local entropy” and I gave you an example of one. You now in a “shady misleading” manner move the goal posts by claiming that you said “natural system” when the word “natural” is nowhere to be seen in your post.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Cyclonic tropospheric systems (i.e., low pressure weather systems) are non-human-created heat engines, and, as such are local decreases in local entropy that result in larger increases in global entropy.

 

[westprog]

Cyclonic tropospheric systems (i.e., low pressure weather systems) are non-human-created heat engines, and, as such are local decreases in local entropy that result in larger increases in global entropy.

I'm sure that there are all kinds of reasons why that's an invalid example, but it seems absolutely fine to me.

Local decreases in entropy fueled by increases elsewhere are entirely normal examples of thermodynamics in action. Of course, if we use the language of intention - whereby living things are "fighting entropy", and other systems are passively falling into place, we can make it seem like there's a difference.

 

[Leumas]

Cyclonic tropospheric systems (i.e., low pressure weather systems) are non-human-created heat engines, and, as such are local decreases in local entropy that result in larger increases in global entropy.

Well….then cyclones must be living…. according to the “operational definition”

…life is unique because it consistently reacts to increases in entropy with decreases in local entropy.

It is all a matter of what “operational definition” you utilize and you can make anything be anything…never mind those pesky realities of logic and science.

 

[GraculusTheGreenBird]

Or it shows that by that definition, you could indeed think of cyclones as exhibiting some of the characteristics of life, albeit for a limited duration. Which doesn't necessarily make it a bad definition, it just shows that defining life is also a non-trivial task.

 

[GraculusTheGreenBird]

Incidentally, as a long term lurker (I could Lurk for my country at the Olympics) and having witnessed most of the Consciousness (and Materialism!) threads over the year, I have to say this one started out well, was sustained for a decent amount of time, but has disappointed in the last 30 or so pages.

5/10. Must try harder.

 

[Belz...]

Saying that life "fights" entropy doesn't really give a precise description of what's going on. It's a tricky issue dealing with two not-entirely well-defined areas of science. It interested Schrodinger enough to write a book about it.

It was a summary of what Rocketdodger said. You did read that, right ?

 

[Belz...]

I've initiated a new thread on consciousness

You monster !!!

 

[dlorde]

As I said, the how is known, it's the why that isn't understood. However, how much people wonder about such things is largely a personal thing.

We don't know why the universe started out the way it did, but given that it did, we know the why of the arrow of time and we know why a glass jar will never re-assemble itself if broken.

 

[annnnoid]

While reading through http://www.aisb.org.uk/publications/proceedings/aisb05/7_MachConsc_Final.pdf it occurs to me that the presentations at this conference mirror the personality types on this thread ( and consciousness threads in general ).

There are some presentations with concrete logic being used, where they actually took the trouble to write software and hook it up to some robot, and demonstrate some aspect of their argument or theory.

There are other presentations made by people with less of a background in computing, that rely on more abstract logic, but nevertheless because they took the time to formally present an argument it comes off as still having some value to the reader.

And finally there is a single presentation that is written by some philosophy professor that essentially repeats the same old tired "Hard Problem of Consciousness" objections to machine consciousness, despite the fact that other presenters in the very same conference do a good job explaining exactly how the HPC isn't an obstacle to machine consciousness. Needless to say, this presentation was utter garbage compared to all the rest. Any formal logical arguments? Nope. Any hard data? Nope. Any references to relevant research less than 10 years old ? Nope. Anything that a person could actually learn something from? Nope.

You keep referring to this conference paper Dodger and how you (and, presumably, the entire AI community) appear to be within a stone’s throw of understanding human consciousness and how to ‘computerize’ the process. How about I refer to another AI conference that was held a year later. At this conference a survey was taken asking the participants to estimate when HLMI would occur. 41% said it wouldn’t happen in less than 50 years (hardly what you’d describe as an optimistic projection). Surprisingly ….amongst a group that you keep insisting is so monolithic in its perspective and advanced in its understanding…fully 41% insisted it would NEVER happen.

I guess you weren’t at that conference (or were you the one that added the box that said ‘next week’ [Pixy’s box said ‘already done it’]).

….and then there’s all those nasty inconvenient idiots who waste their time studying the only thing we’re aware of that actually produces consciousness. They’re the one’s who provided that quote I presented earlier. Amongst that group you’ll hardly find a soul who believes machine consciousness (of the computational variety) is any kind of possibility…now or ever.

So tell me again why I’m wrong to conclude that there does not exist a consensus regarding these issues. Oh yeah….I get it….I’m the moron-philosopher who hasn’t a clue who just reads the words and makes the mistake of jumping to ridiculous conclusions (41% say it’ll never happen….these folks must be really confident about their level of understanding). So what personality type would you be Dodger?

 

[westprog]

Or it shows that by that definition, you could indeed think of cyclones as exhibiting some of the characteristics of life, albeit for a limited duration. Which doesn't necessarily make it a bad definition, it just shows that defining life is also a non-trivial task.

It seems as if the difference involves ascribing volition and intentionality to life, which is not ascribed to, say, weather systems. That might be a good way to look at it, but it's difficult to provide a formal definition, especially if you accept that the apparent volition is the working out of the processes of evolution - which apply to entirely non-living systems as well.

 

[tsig]

You keep referring to this conference paper Dodger and how you (and, presumably, the entire AI community) appear to be within a stone’s throw of understanding human consciousness and how to ‘computerize’ the process. How about I refer to another AI conference that was held a year later. At this conference a survey was taken asking the participants to estimate when HLMI would occur. 41% said it wouldn’t happen in less than 50 years (hardly what you’d describe as an optimistic projection). Surprisingly ….amongst a group that you keep insisting is so monolithic in its perspective and advanced in its understanding…fully 41% insisted it would NEVER happen.

I guess you weren’t at that conference (or were you the one that added the box that said ‘next week’ [Pixy’s box said ‘already done it’]).

….and then there’s all those nasty inconvenient idiots who waste their time studying the only thing we’re aware of that actually produces consciousness. They’re the one’s who provided that quote I presented earlier. Amongst that group you’ll hardly find a soul who believes machine consciousness (of the computational variety) is any kind of possibility…now or ever.

So tell me again why I’m wrong to conclude that there does not exist a consensus regarding these issues. Oh yeah….I get it….I’m the moron-philosopher who hasn’t a clue who just reads the words and makes the mistake of jumping to ridiculous conclusions (41% say it’ll never happen….these folks must be really confident about their level of understanding). So what personality type would you be Dodger?

You're 50% right.

 

[westprog]

It was a summary of what Rocketdodger said. You did read that, right ?

Sorry, no. I reached the point of no return a while back, and I have no intention of changing my mind.

I prefer to put forward my own views and let them stand or fall on their own merits.

 

[Belz...]

Sorry, no. I reached the point of no return a while back, and I have no intention of changing my mind.

I'm sorry to hear that. The ability to change your mind is the mark of a true skeptic.

 

[westprog]

You keep referring to this conference paper Dodger and how you (and, presumably, the entire AI community) appear to be within a stone’s throw of understanding human consciousness and how to ‘computerize’ the process. How about I refer to another AI conference that was held a year later. At this conference a survey was taken asking the participants to estimate when HLMI would occur. 41% said it wouldn’t happen in less than 50 years (hardly what you’d describe as an optimistic projection). Surprisingly ….amongst a group that you keep insisting is so monolithic in its perspective and advanced in its understanding…fully 41% insisted it would NEVER happen.

I guess you weren’t at that conference (or were you the one that added the box that said ‘next week’ [Pixy’s box said ‘already done it’]).

….and then there’s all those nasty inconvenient idiots who waste their time studying the only thing we’re aware of that actually produces consciousness. They’re the one’s who provided that quote I presented earlier. Amongst that group you’ll hardly find a soul who believes machine consciousness (of the computational variety) is any kind of possibility…now or ever.

So tell me again why I’m wrong to conclude that there does not exist a consensus regarding these issues. Oh yeah….I get it….I’m the moron-philosopher who hasn’t a clue who just reads the words and makes the mistake of jumping to ridiculous conclusions (41% say it’ll never happen….these folks must be really confident about their level of understanding). So what personality type would you be Dodger?

Quite clearly the people putting forward the wrong views aren't real experts. If they were, they would have the right views. There is total consensus among the people who agree with each other, and the people who disagree don't matter.

 

[Brainache]

Sorry, no. I reached the point of no return a while back, and I have no intention of changing my mind.

I prefer to put forward my own views and let them stand or fall on their own merits.

Quite clearly the people putting forward the wrong views aren't real experts. If they were, they would have the right views. There is total consensus among the people who agree with each other, and the people who disagree don't matter.

They don't matter if they can't change their mind.

 

[rocketdodger]

I looked over the post I responded to and I could not find the word “natural” anywhere in it. So naturally I missed it because it was not even there.

Here is the post again…… please show me where you said “natural” in it.

​

I guess you must be moving the goal posts again, eh?

You asked for a system that “consistently reacts to increases in entropy with decreases in local entropy” and I gave you an example of one. You now in a “shady misleading” manner move the goal posts by claiming that you said “natural system” when the word “natural” is nowhere to be seen in your post.

Sorry my bad, it was keyfeatures that said "natural," and I was responding to westprog's response to his post.

So no moving goalposts...

... and to be honest, are you really going to argue against life being thermodynamically unique by referring to a device made by life? You realize that by logical extension, air conditioners are a result of life, don't you?

*shakes head*

 

[rocketdodger]

Cyclonic tropospheric systems (i.e., low pressure weather systems) are non-human-created heat engines, and, as such are local decreases in local entropy that result in larger increases in global entropy.

The argument isn't that life is unique because of exhibiting a local decrease in entropy. That is a strawman put forth by westprog.

The argument is that life is unique because of how it exhibits behavior, from a state of lowered local entropy, that keeps itself in a similar state of lowered local entropy.

Admittedly it seems at first that something like a hurricane functions that way as well, though. They feed off the moisture and energy of the warm ocean and keep themselves in a hurricane state as long as those sources continue.

Off the top of my head there seems to be a glaring difference, though -- life actively responds to environmental changes in ways that bring it back into an ideal state, whereas a hurricane completely at the mercy of the environment. I will think about this more and see if I can formalize these differences.

 

[rocketdodger]

You keep referring to this conference paper Dodger and how you (and, presumably, the entire AI community) appear to be within a stone’s throw of understanding human consciousness and how to ‘computerize’ the process. How about I refer to another AI conference that was held a year later. At this conference a survey was taken asking the participants to estimate when HLMI would occur. 41% said it wouldn’t happen in less than 50 years (hardly what you’d describe as an optimistic projection). Surprisingly ….amongst a group that you keep insisting is so monolithic in its perspective and advanced in its understanding…fully 41% insisted it would NEVER happen.

I guess you weren’t at that conference (or were you the one that added the box that said ‘next week’ [Pixy’s box said ‘already done it’]).

….and then there’s all those nasty inconvenient idiots who waste their time studying the only thing we’re aware of that actually produces consciousness. They’re the one’s who provided that quote I presented earlier. Amongst that group you’ll hardly find a soul who believes machine consciousness (of the computational variety) is any kind of possibility…now or ever.

So tell me again why I’m wrong to conclude that there does not exist a consensus regarding these issues. Oh yeah….I get it….I’m the moron-philosopher who hasn’t a clue who just reads the words and makes the mistake of jumping to ridiculous conclusions (41% say it’ll never happen….these folks must be really confident about their level of understanding). So what personality type would you be Dodger?

Did you actually read the presentations from either of these conferences?

Did you confirm that everyone in attendance was actually a researcher?

I did read the presentations of one conference, and I did confirm that no, they aren't all researchers. As I said, in particular, at least one of the presentations was specifically aimed at arguing against the notion of machine consciousness, and it was given by a philosophy professor.

Your argument is basically tantamount to saying that because a bunch of clowns with ulterior motives can attend a conference on global warming and assert the non-existence of the problem, it somehow skews the "consensus" opinion of the scientists actually researching the issue.

That is all I am asking -- if you want to argue from authority, at least use the right authority, and that would be the scientists doing the research, not the philosophy professors that get paid to talk.

 

[rocketdodger]

I'm sure that there are all kinds of reasons why that's an invalid example, but it seems absolutely fine to me.

Local decreases in entropy fueled by increases elsewhere are entirely normal examples of thermodynamics in action. Of course, if we use the language of intention - whereby living things are "fighting entropy", and other systems are passively falling into place, we can make it seem like there's a difference.

This is irrelevant to the actual arguments presented.

You did do a good job of demolishing that strawman, though. Bravo.