On Consciousness

[Mr. Scott]

I have answered this, but I'm in an acute stage of mania at the moment (get this for a week or so every year for some reason!) so instead of replying I'm writing a mini thesis about how consiousness can unify the fundamental forces and have a way with the issue of dark matter, free will, and solve the long standing issue of why you get a sore mouth when you eat too much kellogs cornflakes.

That is if my keyboard doesn't catch on fire.

I expect nothing less than a nobel prize, although a move to AAH might suffice.

I gotta go hand in an assignment I aced now though, guess thats why me'sa so manic today.

I'll be back.

Oh, I am sorry to hear you are in the manic state. I had a very close friend who was quite useless to interact with when he was manic because his delusions were impenetrable. I noticed you did not answer my question, but that's OK. Try again when you are back down to earth.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Consciousness may be nothing more than a consensus of opinion.
Altering it shifts the consensus.

If consciousness dwells in an individual, who is the consensus between?

 

[rocketdodger]

The difference between the artificial and real network is the same as the difference between a contour map and a mountain.

Using misinforming analogies doesn't escape the question I asked, which you still have not answered. Let me repeat:

Why do you think the causal sequences of node activation in an artificial neural network different than the causal sequences of node activation in a biological neural network?

I'll try to make the question more clear:

In a biological neural network, suppose neurons are connected like A-->B-->C. Further suppose that A fires, which causes B to fire, which causes C to fire. This is what we call a causal sequence or sequence of causation. Our notion of causality comes from the fact that B fires because A "caused" it to, etc. Do you agree with this?

Now suppose we have three neurons in an artificial neural network, connected like Aa->Ba->Ca ( where small "a" means "artificial" ). Further suppose that Aa fires, which causes Ba to fire, which causes Ca to fire.

My question is why is the causation in the artificial case somehow "less" than that in the biological case. Causation is causation, there is only one type of it, so I am confused as to why people treat different instances of causation as lesser than others.

Note that I didn't say anything at all about the nature of the neurons or their connections. That is irrelevant for my question. I am only asking about the causal relationships in the system.

Nonsense.

Prove that the computer is imagining anything, with testable experimental evidence as the foundation of this.

It is all in the research. A basic definition imagination as the act of internally simulating the perceived results of future actions and events. So if the robot internally simulates it's perceptions of future actions and events, it is imagining according to that definition.

A more stringent definition is internally simulating the perceived results of future actions and events using a neural network with architecture based on that of the mamallian brain. In this case the robot again satisfies the definition.

If you want to define imagination as "internally simulating the perceived results of future actions and events using a neural network with nearly identical architecture to that of the brain of higher primates" then you have that right, I won't stop you. But that is just moving the goalposts, and furthermore making such a move is useless because the difference between the robot neural network and our neural networks is simply a matter of complexity. Meaning, it is just a matter of time and engineering before this definition is satisfied by a robot brain.

The important thing to note here is that the robot is internally simulating future perceptions of events, not future events. This isn't how A.I. is traditionally architected. Traditionally, robots gather information about the world and run it through programs that change the information into what the programmer thinks it should be interpreted as. Meaning, it is no longer a perception at that point. And that is a huge conceptual difference. Because animals like humans don't have magical access to actual things in the world, we only have access to our perceptions. Our imaginations are full of imagined perceptions, not imagined things. We don't have programs in our brains that change perceptions into something else -- they remain perceptions. When you think of a "firetruck" that is actually just an aggregation of perceptions, nothing more. Most research on machine consciousness in the past hasn't grasped the magnitude of this distinction, that's why old-school A.I. is thought of as so "programmed." But some of the new crop of A.I., like this robot, is very different.

 

[rocketdodger]

There is no algorithm that helps to explain the feeling of what of what it is like to be something.

That isn't true.

If you properly define "feeling" and "something" then the algorithms are trivial.

Try defining "feeling" and "something" and I can show you.

 

[dlorde]

"It's a highly complex system that works in mutual symbiosis with all scales, from the quantum, to the microscopic, to the full biological body and to the universe at large. "

By "mutual symbiosis" I should explain I mean that consiousness is not just something someone has, its a continuum thats effected by things that you simply can not predict by mathematical models (no matter how elegant and successful they are)

Tautology.

Just sayin'.

 

[Jeff Corey]

They are already trained.
Our challenge would be to impose our needs within their behavior model.
This approach is a bit abstract.
perhaps I'll think of a way to word it better.

I must disagree. Training strongly implies that behavior is modified by experience. The definition of learning is a change in behavior caused by experience and not caused by maturation, psychoactive chemicals, surgery, or other causes unrelated to interaction with the environment.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Tautology.

Just sayin'.

I did not make it very clear. The second one you quoted, for some reason I forgot to add the next sentence explaining what I meant in more depth, as it stands I can see how it just implies chaos in the universe makes consciousness non computable. Which is not what I meant to imply.

So yea, tautology, my bad.

The first one you quoted "It's a highly complex system that works in mutual symbiosis with all scales, from the quantum, to the microscopic, to the full biological body and to the universe at large."

I still firmly believe and will defend.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Oh, I am sorry to hear you are in the manic state. I had a very close friend who was quite useless to interact with when he was manic because his delusions were impenetrable. I noticed you did not answer my question, but that's OK. Try again when you are back down to earth.

Which question? You asked me a few. And I'm back down to earth as is possible for me now, somewhere in the clouds. Excellent Wifi connection here though, so will be active the next few days.

 

[Zeuzzz]

What evidence is there that biological neural networks work at the scale of the universe at large?

If it's this question you were referring to then we will need to first find some common ground for what "biological neural networks" are firstly made of, and secondly which force(s) is used for transferring and linking the information in a computable fashion.

 

[quarky]

If consciousness dwells in an individual, who is the consensus between?

other individuals.

 

[quarky]

I must disagree. Training strongly implies that behavior is modified by experience. The definition of learning is a change in behavior caused by experience and not caused by maturation, psychoactive chemicals, surgery, or other causes unrelated to interaction with the environment.

Yeah.
I meant that the ants have been trained by evolution and survival. The tricks they have are very well learned. Our trick would be to trick their trick.

We use to trick donkeys to walk around in a circle, moving a heavy object, like a water pumper. Ants could do that and lots more, except more nano.

Completing circuits.

 

[Zeuzzz]

If what you're saying is basically that people are affected by the rest of the universe and because of chaos we can't make exact predictions about the future behavior of the brain, well, that's true but I think we're all aware of it, it equally true of the behavior of the atmosphere, for instance.

We cant make exact predictions about the atmosphere as its just currently way beyond our computational power. Plus, we are now effecting the atmosphere with our own non computable form of consciousness, which makes things even trickier.

I see no similarity at all between the complexity and chaos of the atmosphere and the complexity of the brain. This comes down to what some people have named “the hard problem of consciousness”, of which there seem to be two main schools of thought; emergence or some kind of fundamental approach.

Emergence is the currently popular one with most scientists and is based on the idea that conscious experience emerges at a high level of complexity. The brain being a hierarchy of complexity and once you get high enough up that hierarchy then, bang, a new property emerges; consciousness. Like you say, a storm or a tornado is a complex pattern that emerges from simple elements, gas molecules working together to create a highly complex dynamic system, like sunspots, or a fire. Wetness from water is an emergent property for example, and the emergent property of fire is heat. The idea that consciousness manifests at a high level of complexity in this hierarchical system that we call the brain has a major problem. That being that none of these other emergent phenomenon are conscious. More over theres no prediction yet as to at what level of complexity consciousness might occur in the brain. If that was the case computers should be conscious already. Additionally, the emergent approach takes away the possibility of free will, and it also doesn't give an explanation of how these systems transitioned from pre conscious states (or unconsious states) into consciousness itself. These issues imply that there is something more to consciousness than being an emergent property of computation in the brain.

The fundamental approach to consciousness assumes that consciousness is beyond the realm of regular computation, and that consciousness is a fundamental property of space time that precludes material reality in some way. I read Penroses book a while back (forgotten the name) but he made a very well reasoned argument that was extremely similar in it's approach. The arguments in favour of this were more conceptual than computable, and based on Godels theorems, quantum superposition, entanglement and quantum gravity; implying the (seemingly) deterministic nature of the physical world arrises from a fundamental field of universal consciousness of some sort that exists at a fundamental (below quantum) level. He did not use the term “field of consciousness” himself if I recall, but that is essentially what he proposed.

 

[rocketdodger]

The idea that consciousness manifests at a high level of complexity in this hierarchical system that we call the brain has a major problem. That being that none of these other emergent phenomenon are conscious.

Just listen to how stupid this reasoning is:

1) Wetness as an emergent property is flawed because heat is not wet.
2) Heat as an emergent property is flawed because wetness is not hot.
3) Consciousness as an emergent property is flawed because neither wetness nor heat is conscious.

Note that 3) is exactly what you said. If you think 1) and 2) are utterly stupid, then so is 3).

More over theres no prediction yet as to at what level of complexity consciousness might occur in the brain.

Only if you ignore the last few decades of scientific research. I find it pretty sad that you claim there is no prediction right after you question me about factual research on robot consciousness, as if you suddenly forgot that people have been linking you to such research.

If that was the case computers should be conscious already.

Robots have been demonstrating functional consciousness for a decade. Whether or not phenomenal consciousness has been demonstrated isn't as clear, but is it possible ( and likely, depending on who you ask ) that is has and we just don't know it for sure because we aren't sure what phenomenal consciousness entails.

Additionally, the emergent approach takes away the possibility of free will,

No, it doesn't, it just means there isn't some magical spirit influencing your decisions. If that is what you mean by "free will" then you have other problems.

and it also doesn't give an explanation of how these systems transitioned from pre conscious states (or unconsious states) into consciousness itself.

Yes, it does. If you paid attention to anything that anyone has been saying you would know that.

These issues imply that there is something more to consciousness than being an emergent property of computation in the brain.

Similarly, the issues with modern science imply there is something more to the history of the universe than what we currently know. It doesn't make sense that we evolved from apes, so the Earth must be 6000 years old.

Oh wait -- that's if you ignore science. If you ignore science, and look at the issues you think science has, even though you have no idea because you ignore science, then of course you are going to think science doesn't have the right answers.

And then you can go be a young earth creationist who thinks God made bananas the perfect food for humans. Have fun.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Just listen to how stupid this reasoning is:

1) Wetness as an emergent property is flawed because heat is not wet.
2) Heat as an emergent property is flawed because wetness is not hot.
3) Consciousness as an emergent property is flawed because neither wetness nor heat is conscious.

Note that 3) is exactly what you said. If you think 1) and 2) are utterly stupid, then so is 3).

I dont have a clue what your talking about.

You have just randomly reordered totally separate examples I gave and mixed them together to produce nonsense, and claimed that was my position. Strawman.

I quote:

"Note that 3) is exactly what you said."
[.....]
"3) Consciousness as an emergent property is flawed because neither wetness nor heat is conscious."

Where did I say that? Please, quote me directly.

Only if you ignore the last few decades of scientific research. I find it pretty sad that you claim there is no prediction right after you question me about factual research on robot consciousness, as if you suddenly forgot that people have been linking you to such research.

There are more people involved in this thread than just you. I will prioritise the point I feel most prudent to address first. If you think I'm dodging a question or avoiding something then feel free to post it again or point this out.

No, it doesn't, it just means there isn't some magical spirit influencing your decisions. If that is what you mean by "free will" then you have other problems.

Why are you saying magical spirits? I made no such reference to any such thing.

And why the quotation marks around free will?

And then you can go be a young earth creationist who thinks God made bananas the perfect food for humans. Have fun.

You can label me what ever you want, a "young earth creationist", a crackpot, whatever you choose. Such accusations contribute nothing to the discussion.

Have you read Sir Roger Penroses book I referred to? Shadows of the mind, or the emporers new mind, I think it was called.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Yeah.
I meant that the ants have been trained by evolution and survival. The tricks they have are very well learned. Our trick would be to trick their trick.

We use to trick donkeys to walk around in a circle, moving a heavy object, like a water pumper. Ants could do that and lots more, except more nano.

Completing circuits.

You are using "trained" and "learned" very differently than people who study those processes, like me, ever do. We define them in terms of changes in the behavior of individual organisms, not of a species over time through natural selection.

 

[Zeuzzz]

This may be of interest to anyone doing more than emotively reacting to posts. Its the most recent paper Pubished by Penrose et al on the subject of my above post.

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/Cosmology160.html

Journal of Cosmology, 2011, Vol. 14.
JournalofCosmology.com, 2011
Consciousness in the Universe:
Neuroscience, Quantum Space-Time Geometry and Orch OR Theory
Roger Penrose, PhD, OM, FRS1, and Stuart Hameroff, MD2
1Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor, Mathematical Institute, Emeritus Fellow, Wadham College,
University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
2Professor, Anesthesiology and Psychology, Director, Center for Consciousness Studies, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA


Abstract

The nature of consciousness, its occurrence in the brain, and its ultimate place in the universe are unknown. We proposed in the mid 1990's that consciousness depends on biologically 'orchestrated' quantum computations in collections of microtubules within brain neurons, that these quantum computations correlate with and regulate neuronal activity, and that the continuous Schrödinger evolution of each quantum computation terminates in accordance with the specific Diósi–Penrose (DP) scheme of 'objective reduction' of the quantum state (OR). This orchestrated OR activity (Orch OR) is taken to result in a moment of conscious awareness and/or choice. This particular (DP) form of OR is taken to be a quantum-gravity process related to the fundamentals of spacetime geometry, so Orch OR suggests a connection between brain biomolecular processes and fine-scale structure of the universe. Here we review and update Orch OR in light of criticisms and developments in quantum biology, neuroscience, physics and cosmology. We conclude that consciousness plays an intrinsic role in the universe.

 

[dlorde]

The first one you quoted "It's a highly complex system that works in mutual symbiosis with all scales, from the quantum, to the microscopic, to the full biological body and to the universe at large."

I still firmly believe and will defend.

Symbiosis is a mutually beneficial relationship. That's what it means. Maybe I should have called 'redundancy'...

 

[rocketdodger]

I dont have a clue what your talking about.

You have just randomly reordered totally separate examples I gave and mixed them together to produce nonsense, and claimed that was my position. Strawman.

I quote:

"Note that 3) is exactly what you said."
[.....]
"3) Consciousness as an emergent property is flawed because neither wetness nor heat is conscious."

Where did I say that? Please, quote me directly.

You said:

Like you say, a storm or a tornado is a complex pattern that emerges from simple elements, gas molecules working together to create a highly complex dynamic system, like sunspots, or a fire. Wetness from water is an emergent property for example, and the emergent property of fire is heat. The idea that consciousness manifests at a high level of complexity in this hierarchical system that we call the brain has a major problem. That being that none of these other emergent phenomenon are conscious.

Look at the last sentence -- you claim that the fact that a tornado, sunspots, fire, wetness, whatever, are not conscious, and thus consciousness can't be an emergent phenomenon.

Is this not your argument? That we can't compare brains to tornadoes because tornadoes are not conscious?

There are more people involved in this thread than just you. I will prioritise the point I feel most prudent to address first. If you think I'm dodging a question or avoiding something then feel free to post it again or point this out.

If I was talking about just me, that would be a valid response. But I'm not. Saying that "More over theres no prediction yet as to at what level of complexity consciousness might occur in the brain," given what has been said in this thread, is just wrong. So you either didn't read the majority of the thread, or you are being purposefully misleading.

Why are you saying magical spirits? I made no such reference to any such thing.

And why the quotation marks around free will?

Because if you think there is some aspect of your decision making that is neither determined nor random, it is 1) belief in magical spirits and 2) such a misunderstanding of the notion of free will that it requires quotes.

"free will" == free will, when people have no idea what free will entails.

Have you read Sir Roger Penroses book I referred to? Shadows of the mind, or the emporers new mind, I think it was called.

Absolutely not -- because Penrose is crazy. He isn't a programmer, he isn't a computer scientist, he isn't a neuroscientist, he basically has far too little experience or education in the relevant subjects to write a book about quantum consciousness.

Or, I guess you could say he has exactly the right amount of experience and education to write a book on quantum consciousness, because quantum consciousness is utter nonsense.

And this is the main reason why I won't waste my time with his nonsense -- his entire premise for the book is logically invalid: google "lucas penrose fallacy" and read up on it.

 

[MaartenVergu]

I have a difficulty with the word 'consciousness'.
You can be unconscious and experiencing dreams.
You can be asleep, not conscious of what's happening, but having some level of experiencing.
So, some of you know my theory: we are electricity and electricity is where we are:

http://maartenverguchtt.weebly.com/we-are-electricity-and-electricity-is-us.html

 

[Zeuzzz]

Absolutely not -- because Penrose is crazy. He isn't a programmer, he isn't a computer scientist, he isn't a neuroscientist, he basically has far too little experience or education in the relevant subjects to write a book about quantum consciousness.

Attack the messenger not the message, gotcha.

Some of the greatest advances in science have come from interdisciplinary models proposed by people that have combined two or more academic fields into one single discipline.

Or, I guess you could say he has exactly the right amount of experience and education to write a book on quantum consciousness, because quantum consciousness is utter nonsense.

Subjective statement without scientific reasoning noted.

And this is the main reason why I won't waste my time with his nonsense -- his entire premise for the book is logically invalid: google "lucas penrose fallacy" and read up on it.

Failure to even look at the material I am talking about, whilst arguing against it, dually noted.

aka argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

Good day to you

Brains are like parachutes. They only work when open.