On Consciousness

[Mr. Scott]

Maybe. People in the 80's thought they'd never get beaten by a computer in chess.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_qN3dgYGqE

I like the way the robots see the future and start moving the paddle to where the ball will be, even choosing between forehand and backhand before the ball arrives.

 

[Mr. Scott]

The first electronic computer was built to "feel the future" (calculate artillery trajectories), and computers are quite good at it.

Since physics is about mathematically describing the motions of galaxies and behavior quarks and everything in between, and "feeling the future" of where stuff is going, the brain, being made of particles who's futures are well described by physics "maths," should be amenable to mathematical formulae and represented as changing numbers.

The brain's purpose is to control the body, whether to put a table tennis paddle in position to return the ball, or to move the hand to write poetry or paint fine art, to make love to a significant other, or type on a computer and post on the randi forum. A computer, which works only with numbers, can control a robot holding a paddle, or what's needed to create fine art or express love.

If you disagree, explain precisely why, in a way that has a ghost of a chance of convincing anyone, without resorting to logical fallacies such as:

- Appeal to emotion (just because it's uncomfortable to think our brains are machines does not mean our brains are not machines)

- Confusing currently unexplained with unexplainable (since we don't know now how to make a machine that duplicates human consciousness, it doesn't mean we never will)

- Ad hominem (Someone who believes machines can be conscious does not have to have an abnormally machine-like brain)

- Argument from Personal Incredulity (If you don't know how manipulating numbers can produce consciousness, it does not mean manipulating numbers cannot produce consciousness)

- Argument from personal anecdote (If your brain, while functioning abnormally, feels connected to the universe, it does not imply it's a vital attribute of consciousness, nor whether or not a machine can be made to also feel that way)

 

[Itztli]

It was our conscious behavior that defined its exact mechanistic and deterministic job. Again, its doing nothing more than we consciously choose to program it to do.

The fact that someone programs the computer doesn't say much about its limitations. You can make complicated results by repeating simple rules to the point where the programmer doesn't know what to expect anymore. For example, I could easily program a computer to play chess better than I can. Your brains are governed by fixed laws of physics, and yet they produce consciousness. We could program similar simple rules in a computer, and the most amazing and unanticipated things could come out.

Example, if you please, of the 'bits of conscious'. Note, these have to be proof of the machines own distinct consciousness, not just based on programming algorithms we coded that are entirely the result of our consciousness.

Proof would be impossible, since there's no objective way to establish a subjective experience. Anyway, just compare it your own brain. Is your consciousness in your left or right hemisphere ? Or a bit of both ? If it's in both, are the two halves equally powerfully conscious as the whole brain ? If so, split the brain again, and repeat the question.

The example can either be in relation to physical material, the programming language used and at what level it arises (from core binary? AscII? hexadecimal? C#? Java algorithms?) and state an example source code, and the exact parts that demonstrate the programs/machines own conscious.

I can't. But imagine that showed your a 1-billion line piece of code. How would you find out if a computer running this code is conscious ?

The whole system in its entirety dumb, not just the small parts. Its not got intelligence or conscious, its just a reflection of the conscious programming choices of the user, it can do nothing more, nothing less.

How does that differ in your brain ? Does any particular sodium ion just follow the laws of physics, or does it have some intelligence or consciousness ?

You seem to have the impression that conscious has some sort of location or physical basis in the material world, when to date there is absolutely no evidence of that apart from inferences based on its effects on brain chemistry.

Of course I have that impression. It is based on our understanding of the physical world. We can make conscious devices out of minerals, amino acids, fats and carbohydrates, pretty much from scratch. We have a good understanding how these elements work at a basic level, and there's nothing that suggests anything magical going on. Every part of the brain is just following simple rules of physics.

 

[PixyMisa]

It was our conscious behavior that defined its exact mechanistic and deterministic job. Again, its doing nothing more than we consciously choose to program it to do.

Fallacy of division.

 

[PixyMisa]

Proof would be impossible, since there's no objective way to establish a subjective experience.

There is, if you start out with a concrete definition of consciousness.

Of course I have that impression. It is based on our understanding of the physical world. We can make conscious devices out of minerals, amino acids, fats and carbohydrates, pretty much from scratch. We have a good understanding how these elements work at a basic level, and there's nothing that suggests anything magical going on. Every part of the brain is just following simple rules of physics.

Yep.

 

[PixyMisa]

Heh. You missed something out here, Pixy. How is the "the conscious behavior in the computer program" ?

By definition.

That's comparable to saying this contour map I drew/programmed possesses conscious behavior as when the earth moves so do the lines.

No.

The only conscious thing in this example is the person that drew/programmed the machine mathematically to do its job.

By definition, that is untrue.

The program they create "mapping consciousness onto rainstorm" (doesn't even make sense anyway)

That's the point, yes. Mapping consciousness onto a rainstorm via a computer program is possible, but the rainstorm is irrelevant. The computer program would have to be conscious.

is just a mechanistic machine doing what its told by our consciousness and nothing more.

Even if I were to allow that as meaningful, let alone accurate, it wouldn't matter in the slightest for Lanier's hapless, self-defeating thought experiment. The hypothetical he has set up contradicts the conclusions he tries to draw from it.

And I'm curious. When you say something is "in" something, this infers a spacial location, topologically enclosed by something.

Or a mathematical relationship.

Where "in" the code is the conscious behavior?

In its operation.

Look forward to your reply tomorrow.

No. No you don't.

 

[quarky]

A definition of unconsciousness might help define its opposite.

 

[Itztli]

There is, if you start out with a concrete definition of consciousness.

Except that it is impossible to have everybody agree on a set of objective criteria of consciousness. And the reason for that is that people will claim your objective definition doesn't match what they are feeling.

 

[PixyMisa]

Except that it is impossible to have everybody agree on a set of objective criteria of consciousness. And the reason for that is that people will claim your objective definition doesn't match what they are feeling.

Sure. But it's likewise impossible to have everybody agree that a dozen men have walked upon the Moon, or that the Earth is an oblate spheroid. Getting people to accept facts is a distinct problem from determining what the facts are.

 

[Itztli]

Sure. But it's likewise impossible to have everybody agree that a dozen men have walked upon the Moon, or that the Earth is an oblate spheroid. Getting people to accept facts is a distinct problem from determining what the facts are.

At least, when we're discussing men walking on the Moon, we're at least agreeing on the terms "men", "walking" and "Moon". And, using the proper equipment, we could take somebody to the Moon, and show them the old footsteps.

Arguing about consciousness is like stepping on each other's toe, and then argue who's suffering the most pain.

 

[PixyMisa]

At least, when we're discussing men walking on the Moon, we're at least agreeing on the terms "men", "walking" and "Moon". And, using the proper equipment, we could take somebody to the Moon, and show them the old footsteps.

The same applies to consciousness. The difficulty is that people don't accept that.

 

[Itztli]

The same applies to consciousness. The difficulty is that people don't accept that.

No. If you can't even decide who is feeling more pain between two test subjects, there's no hope you can answer even more complex issues.

 

[steenkh]

It was our conscious behavior that defined its exact mechanistic and deterministic job. Again, its doing nothing more than we consciously choose to program it to do.

No. Do you know the type of programs called neural programs? They are not programmed by code but by reward and punishment, and when they do something, we have no idea how the decision was made. These programs have not risen to a level where they can be termed conscious, or merely intelligent, but they have reached a level where we cannot predict what they will do.

 

[quarky]

No. Do you know the type of programs called neural programs? They are not programmed by code but by reward and punishment, and when they do something, we have no idea how the decision was made. These programs have not risen to a level where they can be termed conscious, or merely intelligent, but they have reached a level where we cannot predict what they will do.

I can't predict what my dvd player or coffee maker will do.

Except die, of course.
$9.99 for a new coffee maker at WalMart.

So, I guess.

 

[PixyMisa]

No. If you can't even decide who is feeling more pain between two test subjects, there's no hope you can answer even more complex issues.

Sure. And if you can't show that the Earth isn't flat, there's no hope that you can answer precisely how round it is.

 

[Itztli]

Sure. And if you can't show that the Earth isn't flat, there's no hope that you can answer precisely how round it is.

Showing the Earth is round is actually quite simple. Your analogy is flawed.

 

[quarky]

Flawed analogies is why I pay for internet service.

 

[PixyMisa]

Showing the Earth is round is actually quite simple.

Yes. Nevertheless...

Your analogy is flawed.

How so?

 

[Itztli]

How so?

The fact that the Earth isn't flat is easy to establish objectively.

Questions about who's feeling more pain can not be established objectively.

That's why the first is science where we make daily progress, and the second is philosophy, where we're still rehashing the same arguments that the ancient Greeks used.

 

[PixyMisa]

The fact that the Earth isn't flat is easy to establish objectively.

There are easy ways to establish this fact indirectly, and difficult ways to establish it directly, so yes.

This doesn't mean that people will agree, merely that it is true.

Questions about who's feeling more pain can not be established objectively.

What basis do you have for this curious assertion?

That's why the first is science where we make daily progress, and the second is philosophy, where we're still rehashing the same arguments that the ancient Greeks used.

Except that this is not true. Yes, one side of the argument is still repeating the mistakes of the ancient Greeks, but the other side bases its position on modern science and mathematics.