On Consciousness

[keyfeatures]

That would require consciousness to be based on physical processes that cannot be simulated by a computer. But in theory, all physical processes can be simulated by a computer, even quantum processes.

Not so. Quantum observations can be mirrored. This is not necessarily the same as quantum states. It depends what we are actually getting with quantum observations - i.e. is the observation the complete system? If they are the complete system, no problem. If they are not, that could well be a problem.

Compare it to the simple coin toss. We can predict coin toss with probability. However, we know that each individual coin toss is actually the result of a specific physical set of determining factors. Therefore, if you could replay the coin toss exactly, you would always get the same result.

With quantum observations, there is a dispute as to whether they are purely statistical, or whether the observations are the result of differences in (unobserved) physical variables. I'm inclined to go with the latter. Indeed, some clever chaps have convincingly argued that quantum states cannot be interpreted statistically. If they are correct, this could impact on the ability to completely recreate computations that rely on discrete quantum states. We may only be able to mirror the statistical results of the toss, but not the discrete systems behind them.

So, a lot of ifs and buts.

 

[!Kaggen]

Can you provide us with examples of non-computable physical processes?

The exact weather in London on January 21st 2013.
The exact movement of the NYSE from September 1st 2015 to November 2nd 2015.
The exact yield of wine grapes from the Loire wine region in France in 2012.

You know future physical events which are practically unpredictable.

 

[PixyMisa]

Consciousness might be a background energy field that we tap into, like radio receivers. Perhaps it is carried by the Higgs Boson or the graviton.

No.

 

[PixyMisa]

I don't think consciousness has been adequately defined so I prefer to answer thus...

Humans, including brains, are purely physical processes. However, we may not be able to fully replicate them via intelligent design.

Huh?

 

[keyfeatures]

Huh?

See my next post. In order to recreate physical processes you need to be able to recreate the system that gives rise to them. In the case of quantum events, if there are physical processes that we can only interpret statistically this will hinder being able to recreate the system.

 

[dlorde]

The poll seems to ignore the theory propounded by Roger Penrose (a gifted mathematician and knowledgeable physicist, but not, I hasten to add, a neurobiologist) that consciousness depends on, erm, quantum
.... He doesn't really require any new physics or anything (well, aside from the fact that he wants to bring quantum gravity into it for reasons I don't understand), so he doesn't fit into category two, but he definitely doesn't fit into categories one or three either.

The Penrose-Hameroff Orch-OR (orchestrated objective reduction) consciousness theory has been widely criticised and generally found to be a chain of unsupported speculation (e.g. Gaps in Penrose's Toilings). Doesn't mean it can't be true, but there's no good reason to think it might be; it's an unnecessary and unnecessarily speculative hypothesis. There are also good QM reasons to doubt it, e.g. Max Tegmark calculated that quantum decoherence is many orders of magnitude too fast for QM to play a direct role.

 

[dlorde]

It seems to me that (with a suitably broad interpretation) both the first and the third option in the poll can be seen as valid from a physicalist viewpoint.

Planet X in the third option could be Earth, the unconscious biological beings could be our distant ancestors, and the conscious machines could be us...

Just a thought

 

[PixyMisa]

See my next post. In order to recreate physical processes you need to be able to recreate the system that gives rise to them. In the case of quantum events, if there are physical processes that we can only interpret statistically this will hinder being able to recreate the system.

But it doesn't hinder being able to recreate the behaviour of the system. And consciousness is a behaviour.

 

[Beerina]

I think there may be another option:

"Consciousness is a kind of data processing and the brain is a machine that can be in principle replicated in other substrates, but general purpose computers are just not made of the right stuff."

The idea that we could make a computer conscious may be as fanciful as thinking we can make trees conscious or that we can make lobsters achieve human-level consciousness.

I think that sometimes people elide the idea that there is nothing non-physical about consciousness with the idea that consciousness can be easily replicated out of any old junk. But that might not be true.

That's basically Searle's position. Because of how the brain operates, it seems like consciousness must be a purely information-driven process. However, it is a real, physical phenomenon, and therefore cannot arise just by the pushing around of information.


Now having said that, you could, in principle, simulate the physical phenomena that give rise to consciousness, assuming we ever figure it out, and thus create an unconscious consciousness that otherwise functions perfectly fine.

I think that was actually the point with Lieutenant Ilia in the first Star Trek movie -- they mechanically simulated every single process inside her body, including whatever it was that gave rise to her consciousness, thus there was a (probably not actually conscious) pseudo-consciousness of her operating there in fits and starts that they then took advantage of.

 

[Farsight]

There's a thing about consciousness that people don't get. You aren't really conscious and in control. You only think you are. This Horizon episode is well worth watching. It says "only 10 hours left to view", and maybe in some parts of the world you can't view it, but if you can it's well worth it.

 

[keyfeatures]

But it doesn't hinder being able to recreate the behaviour of the system. And consciousness is a behaviour.

It would hinder being able to recreate the behaviour of the system. It may or may not hinder being able to recreate the observable behaviour of the system. If you can only see the results of the coin toss and not the mechanism that gives the results, you might not be able to recreate a coin tossing system, only mirror the results.

If you want to define consciousness as a behaviour go ahead. It's currently a meaningless term as far as I can tell.

 

[angrysoba]

That's basically Searle's position. Because of how the brain operates, it seems like consciousness must be a purely information-driven process. However, it is a real, physical phenomenon, and therefore cannot arise just by the pushing around of information.


Now having said that, you could, in principle, simulate the physical phenomena that give rise to consciousness, assuming we ever figure it out, and thus create an unconscious consciousness that otherwise functions perfectly fine.

I think that was actually the point with Lieutenant Ilia in the first Star Trek movie -- they mechanically simulated every single process inside her body, including whatever it was that gave rise to her consciousness, thus there was a (probably not actually conscious) pseudo-consciousness of her operating there in fits and starts that they then took advantage of.

Yeah, I seem to remember reading John Searle's papers on the Chinese Room and, maybe, something else to do with China in a book edited by Boden. I remember them both being quite difficult but his point was that you can replicate systems in ways in which we simply wouldn't call these things conscious, yet those systems would indeed be doing work. In fact, you can create unconscious and unintelligent systems which are made up of conscious, intelligent components.

I think Searle is one of the big opponents of Dennett.

Penrose too, but for different reasons. I get the impression Penrose is often seen at the "wooish" end of the spectrum whereas Searle is more of a killjoy.

 

[quarky]

No.

Whatever?

Its a jive topic.


I simply must fight the inevitable 'humans only' crap regarding awareness and or consciousness. We wouldn't recognize a fully conscious planet if we were sitting on one.

 

[annnnoid]

Whatever?

Its a jive topic.


I simply must fight the inevitable 'humans only' crap regarding awareness and or consciousness. We wouldn't recognize a fully conscious planet if we were sitting on one.

Speak for yourself dude! I, for one, am a fully endowed member of the PIG faith (Pixy Is God). Tell this guy what's what Pixy. Conscious planets! Twaddle.

 

[angrysoba]

The Penrose-Hameroff Orch-OR (orchestrated objective reduction) consciousness theory has been widely criticised and generally found to be a chain of unsupported speculation (e.g. Gaps in Penrose's Toilings). Doesn't mean it can't be true, but there's no good reason to think it might be; it's an unnecessary and unnecessarily speculative hypothesis. There are also good QM reasons to doubt it, e.g. Max Tegmark calculated that quantum decoherence is many orders of magnitude too fast for QM to play a direct role.

Perhaps somewhat amusingly, I was told:

Oops! Internet Explorer could not find gaps in penrose's toilings

So there!

In fact, you put the title in the URL rather than the URL itself.

Here's the link!

 

[Bikewer]

I was just listening to an interview with E. O. Wilson, who said, "consciousness is what brains do."
Referring, of course, to human brains....

 

[Mr. Scott]

The exact weather in London on January 21st 2013.
The exact movement of the NYSE from September 1st 2015 to November 2nd 2015.
The exact yield of wine grapes from the Loire wine region in France in 2012.

You know future physical events which are practically unpredictable.

Prediction is a different realm than computability because of chaos theory. A computer can simulate the weather, the stock exchange, and wine yields. That it can't predict the future EXACTLY is a red herring.

 

[angrysoba]

Speak for yourself dude! I, for one, am a fully endowed member of the PIG faith (Pixy Is God). Tell this guy what's what Pixy. Conscious planets! Twaddle.

Oh Gaia!

 

[Mr. Scott]

The poll seems to ignore the theory propounded by Roger Penrose (a gifted mathematician and knowledgeable physicist, but not, I hasten to add, a neurobiologist) that consciousness depends on, erm, quantum.

I classify Penrose's hypothesis as quantum woo -- a special substance unjustifiably given scientific sheen by use of that Q word. In my analysis, arguments for quantum consciousness distill to arguments from ignorance. They basically say, "I don't know how neurons and synapses as simple switches can collectively produce consciousness, so each must be a quantum computer."

So far, I've seen no evidence that neurons are more than simple switches and need gazillions of internal quantum switches. A paramecium doesn't need a supercomputer to get around obstacles. I've written computer programs that let entities defeat obstacles in ways that really appear conscious, but in fact use simple algorithms.

From Quantum Consciousness:

Figure 3. Single cell paramecium can swim and avoid obstacles using its cytoskeleton.

PS: I love how they drew the paramecium to look like it has a face, frowning from its struggle against the obstacle. See how subtle appeals to emotion can be?

 

[Mr. Scott]

We have not achieved 100% altruistic behavior as a conscious species ourselves despite huge amounts of " programming" through research, education, communication and culture. What makes you think there is any possibility of programming 100% altruistic behavior into a conscious machine? Are you suggesting ethics is an objective science which can be mathematically proven? Because without 100% certainty of a conscious machine being altruistic, which conscious human wants to put there lives at risk to a conscious machine with superior brute force?

This programming for 100% altruistic behavior fails because it goes against our evolved nature, like our programming for healthy eating fails against our imperfectly evolved tastes.

We'd simply program HAL to be nice to people and follow Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics. It wouldn't be rocket science