On Consciousness

[Belz...]

Excellent post, Dodger. Can you give me a short definition of what you mean by "attractor" ?

 

[PixyMisa]

A radiator is any system that performs cooling.
The brain is a system that performs cooling.
Therefore the brain is a radiator.

The brain is indeed a radiator.

Statements in the form of "X is Y" are not valuable assertions. What we need are statements of the form "X does Y in these circumstances but not those".

Agreed; precision is good, and X does Y in general is more precise than X is Y.

But I was making a narrow point: The assertion that the brain is not a computer is simply false.

 

[PixyMisa]

Ah that pesky wasp. Can you link to Dennett talking about it?

I'll see what I can find.

It's a great example of the differences in behaviour between conscious and unconscious systems; that's why it keeps popping up.

 

[dlorde]

The brain is indeed a radiator.

Quite. In general, anything that is warmer than its environment is a radiator.

 

[rocketdodger]

Excellent post, Dodger. Can you give me a short definition of what you mean by "attractor" ?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractor:

An attractor is a set towards which a variable, moving according to the dictates of a dynamical system, evolves over time. That is, points that get close enough to the attractor remain close even if slightly disturbed.

The important thing about the concept of an "attractor" is that it lets us objectively define certain classes of states in a system. Meaning, if a system is in any state that is within the "attraction" space of an attractor, it *will* converge back to the attractor if left alone.

The "objectivity" is important because since these classes of states ( I call them "meta-states" ) are objectively defined, any other system in the universe that is suitably configured is capable of recognizing whether a system is in such a meta-state. In other words, it doesn't take a human to recognize that a rock is in the "solid" meta-state because the attractor for every state in that meta-state is the same -- something like a solid, crystalline rock. And it doesn't take a human to recognize when it is in a "liquid" meta-state because the attractor for that meta-state is different from the one for the "solid" meta-state. Those are objectively defined meta-states.

To be specific, when I say "recognize" I really mean the behavior of changing from one attractor to another somewhere in the recognizing system as well. For example, if a rock melted, going from one attractor to another, and there was some external system interacting with the rock, and inside that other system there was also a change from one attractor to another due to the change in rock meta-states, that other system "recognized" the melting of the rock.

And that, in a nutshell, is how you start with stardust and eventually get life.

 

[Belz...]

That's a bit too technical for my small brain.

 

[Fudbucker]

The brain is indeed a radiator.

This is wrong. The use of "is" here makes an equivalence claim that you are forced into making (more on that in a second).

The brain is clearly NOT a radiator anymore than the brain is a flash drive, or calculator.

As Bodhi points out, just because two things share a commonality does not mean you can make an equivalence claim about them. Dogs also have a mechanism for getting rid of heat, but I don't think anyone's ever told their neighbor to keep his radiator from crapping on the lawn. There's so much more to a dog than "radiating heat", just as there's so much more to a brain than "radiating heat".

Agreed; precision is good, and X does Y in general is more precise than X is Y.

The precise way of saying what you want to say is "The brain IS LIKE a radiator". This is, of course, true and avoids an absurd equivalence claim. The reason I don't think you said this from the start is it implies that the brain is also NOT like a radiator. This is also true. Radiators don't think, feel, store memories, etc.

You are stuck having to claim the brain IS a radiator because your computationalist phlilosophy depends on an earlier equivalence claim you made: "the brain IS a computer". If the brain is only LIKE a computer, that that raises the obvious question: "How is it NOT like a computer?" Which leads to "Are those non-computer attributes important to consciousness?". That is a direction, from lurking in this thread, I can tell you don't want to go. It's a shame too, because as Piggy pointed out, that's where the current science is. The people who are doing the grunt work on the brain are very hesitant in making any strong claims about consciousness. Have you asked yourself why that might be, Pixy?

But I was making a narrow point: The assertion that the brain is not a computer is simply false.

Not at all. Can computers think? Feel? Are they conscious? Can they appreciate a bottle of two-buck Chuck? Get mad at you and cause the hard drive to seize up? No to all of those.

So no, it's not "simply false" the brain isn't a computer. It's actually "simply true". Brains are LIKE computers, but they are NOT computers.

Also, hello to the forum!

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

The brain is indeed a radiator.

Agreed; precision is good, and X does Y in general is more precise than X is Y.

But I was making a narrow point: The assertion that the brain is not a computer is simply false.

And you still fail to see the point. If it is equally correct to assert that the brain is "a radiator" as it is to claim that it is "a computer", then it is neither of those.

In other words, for the convenience of a particular description we can say "X does Y under Z circumstances", but not claim an identity. Claiming "X is Y" is not just narrow, it is also obtuse.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

This is wrong. The use of "is" here makes an equivalence claim that you are forced into making (more on that in a second).

The brain is clearly NOT a radiator anymore than the brain is a flash drive, or calculator.

As Bodhi points out, just because two things share a commonality does not mean you can make an equivalence claim about them. Dogs also have a mechanism for getting rid of heat, but I don't think anyone's ever told their neighbor to keep his radiator from crapping on the lawn. There's so much more to a dog than "radiating heat", just as there's so much more to a brain than "radiating heat".



The precise way of saying what you want to say is "The brain IS LIKE a radiator". This is, of course, true and avoids an absurd equivalence claim. The reason I don't think you said this from the start is it implies that the brain is also NOT like a radiator. This is also true. Radiators don't think, feel, store memories, etc.

You are stuck having to claim the brain IS a radiator because your computationalist phlilosophy depends on an earlier equivalence claim you made: "the brain IS a computer". If the brain is only LIKE a computer, that that raises the obvious question: "How is it NOT like a computer?" Which leads to "Are those non-computer attributes important to consciousness?". That is a direction, from lurking in this thread, I can tell you don't want to go. It's a shame too, because as Piggy pointed out, that's where the current science is. The people who are doing the grunt work on the brain are very hesitant in making any strong claims about consciousness. Have you asked yourself why that might be, Pixy?



Not at all. Can computers think? Feel? Are they conscious? Can they appreciate a bottle of two-buck Chuck? Get mad at you and cause the hard drive to seize up? No to all of those.

So no, it's not "simply false" the brain isn't a computer. It's actually "simply true". Brains are LIKE computers, but they are NOT computers.

Also, hello to the forum!

Excellent post, and welcome to the forum!!

 

[PixyMisa]

This is wrong. The use of "is" here makes an equivalence claim that you are forced into making (more on that in a second).

Bzzzt! Sorry, but thank you for playing!

A horse is a mammal.
A horse is a quadruped.
A horse is a domestic animal.

All factual statements, but mammal, quadruped, and domestic animal, while they are overlapping sets, are merely that.

The precise way of saying what you want to say is "The brain IS LIKE a radiator".

No. That is wrong.

The precise way of saying what I want to say is the brain radiates.

You are stuck having to claim the brain IS a radiator because your computationalist phlilosophy depends on an earlier equivalence claim you made: "the brain IS a computer".

The brain is a computer.

Not at all. Can computers think?

Of course.

Feel?

Certainly.

Are they conscious?

Many are.

Can they appreciate a bottle of two-buck Chuck?

Only poetically, unless you're talking about a gas spectrometer.

Get mad at you and cause the hard drive to seize up?

They can try, but they can cause it only to the degree that you can cause your legs to fall off.

Oh, and welcome! You're wrong on every single point, but welcome anyway!

 

[PixyMisa]

And you still fail to see the point. If it is equally correct to assert that the brain is "a radiator" as it is to claim that it is "a computer", then it is neither of those.

Ah, another lost soul who needs to read The Relativity of Wrong.

 

[Belz...]

And you still fail to see the point. If it is equally correct to assert that the brain is "a radiator" as it is to claim that it is "a computer", then it is neither of those.

That's odd, because the iPhone is a GPS, a phone, a personal computer, and a host of other things without being neither of them.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Ah, another lost soul who needs to read The Relativity of Wrong.

Funny, you talk about souls. Even more fun that you now appeal to relativity of knowledge while (if I remember correctly) you used to being a naive materialist. Oh wait, you still are.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

That's odd, because the iPhone is a GPS, a phone, a personal computer, and a host of other things without being neither of them.

The iPhone can perform such functions, without it being anything else but an iPhone. What's strange about that?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Ah, another lost soul who needs to read The Relativity of Wrong.

Oh, and BTW, as much as I love Asimov, his views are not necessarily accurate. For instance, his conclusion:

"Naturally, the theories we now have might be considered wrong in the simplistic sense of my English Lit correspondent, but in a much truer and subtler sense, they need only be considered incomplete."

It is nonsense. There is not such thing as "an universal objective truth" as he (appears) to claim, and so knowledge is not complete nor incomplete. Our claims either represent facts or they do not. Objective ontological claims are one of the mistakes of naive materialists.

Oh, and please do not resort again to appeal to authority, I believe you are fairly aware of logical fallacies. Argue with your own tools, can you?

 

[rocketdodger]

That's a bit too technical for my small brain.

Ok here is a simple example: Suppose you have a marble and a flat pan with a dent in it. Call this system S.

There are ( effectively ) an infinite amount of states that this system can be in -- the marble can be positioned at an infinite amount of translations and rotations somewhere on the surface of the pan.

However, a certain subset of that infinite set of states is special -- in each of these states, the marble's translation is exactly the same -- located smack in the middle of the dent. This subset is also infinite, because the marble can still take on any rotation, but it is a smaller "infinity" than the set of all states ( that doesn't really matter, I'm just pointing it out ).

That special subset is called an "attractor." It is called this because if the marble is anywhere "near" the dent, or already "in" the dent at all, it will roll right into the middle of the dent once left alone. And certainly if it starts smack in the middle of the dent, any small change will not break it free of the "attraction" of the dent -- it will just roll right back in.

Thus there is another special subset of states -- all the potential states where the marble is close enough to the attractor to be "attracted." If the system is in one of these states, we know it will eventually go back to one of the states of the attractor subset. Meaning, we know if the marble is close to the dent, it will roll into the dent, assuming it is left alone.

That set of states -- when the marble is close enough to the dent to be pulled into it by gravity -- is objectively different from all the other states the system might be in, because they all share the same attractor. The marble *will* roll into the dent if it is near it. It won't magically roll out, it won't magically jump from one dent to another, etc.

To make it even more simple, think of it this way:

< marble is near dent > ----> given enough time -----> < marble is settled in dent >

contrast this with

< marble is not near dent > -----> given enough time -----> < marble is not near dent >

 

[Belz...]

The iPhone can perform such functions, without it being anything else but an iPhone. What's strange about that?

Nice try. The iPhone IS a GPS. It doesn't act like one. It IS one. It IS also a phone. That seems to negate the argument that the brain cannot BE a computer and BE a radiator at the same time.

 

[Belz...]

Ah, ok that's much clearer, now, Dodger. Thanks for taking some of your time.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Nice try. The iPhone IS a GPS. It doesn't act like one. It IS one. It IS also a phone. That seems to negate the argument that the brain cannot BE a computer and BE a radiator at the same time.

Err... No. The iPhone includes a GPS unit.

 

[rocketdodger]

Err... No. The iPhone includes a GPS unit.

To be specific, an iPhone is a programmable hardware device that includes a sensor for locating GPS satellites and is capable of running software that can make use of that input.

However so is any other GPS device. There is no such thing as a GPS device that can't do anything but GPS -- they are all programmable as well, and they call merely run software that makes use of their GPS sensor's input.

So if we call one of those old-school GPS locator thingy's that people had to lug around 10 years ago a "GPS unit" then so might we call an iPhone a "GPS unit"