On Consciousness

[Fudbucker]

The brain includes a radiator and a computer.

How can the brain INCLUDE a computer if you think the brain is a KIND of computer? Does a Mustang include a car???

 

[Piggy]

1. An hallucination is a non-normative experience.
2. Everyday experience is a normative hallucination.

Therefore, everyday experience is a normative non-normative experience...

This really doesn't work for me.

Nor does this:

Well, let me put it this way...

We think of "hallucinations" as deviations from the accurate perception of reality.

The problem with this notion is that our everyday experience does not reproduce reality, so we must be wrong about hallucinations if we think of them that way.

I mentioned the case of your hypothetical hippie buddy who decides to take a small hit of LSD, so that he sees a yellow sky.

But if aliens examined your brains, and the sky, and inquired about your perceptions, then unless they coincidentally had brains which produced blue or yellow when they looked at the sky and therefore made them biased (an unlikely scenario we'll simply ignore) they would have no way to determine which alternative was the norm for humans and which was a "hallucination".

That's what I mean when I say that our everyday experience is a "normative hallucination".

Other animals hallucinate differently.

What it means to be human, as opposed to a cat or dog or bird, is (at least in part) to hallucinate the particular way we do.

So onto the other part, "the brain produces colors and brightness"....

Colors, smells, pain, these exist nowhere but in the brain.

Where else could these things possibly exist?

Probably the most difficult reality for me to accept is that my brain produces brightness. When you walk into a blinding afternoon sun from a dark matinee, it sure feels like something from outside is piercing you like a spear.

But it's not, of course.

The excitation of neurons produces not only the pain, but also the brightness itself.

There is no other possible source for it.

Radical materialism is often harsh and counterintuitive in its conclusions. And the investigation into consciousness is not spared.

 

[Piggy]

Also, hello to the forum!

And hello to you!

Nice to have you here.

 

[PixyMisa]

Again, you are making equivalency errors.

No. That's just you.

Stop playing fast and loose with language.

I'm using her how she is spoke.

More to the point, when you claim the Brain IS a radiator, you are not using precise language. So let's introduce some precision.

Sure: The brain radiates. We can also express this by the factually and gramatically correct sentence "The brain is a radiator."

This is why your claim that "brains are computers" falls apart

No, that's just you.

Brains and computers are not equivalent.

Only if you don't know what a computer does.

You countinually assert this, but have yet to back it up with anything, or respond to the obvious point that brains do things computers can't even hope to accomplish.

Evidence?

The motherlode! Rather than modify your claim that "brains are computers", you go down the path of reductio ad absurdum: computers can think, feel, and are conscious!

Computers can think and feel, and many of them are conscious.

I'm curious: who won the Nobel for creating the first thinking feeling conscious computer?

All computers, by definition, think. All computers with real-world sensors feel. All computers programmed using reflective techniques (that is, many of them, and any complex real-time system with proper monitoring and failsafes) is conscious.

No-one won a Nobel prize for this because (a) there's no relevant prize and (b) it's not at all remarkable.

It's not that they did something magical, it's that thinking, feeling, and consciousness aren't magical either.

 

[PixyMisa]

.
Build a computer out of rope.
The nautical term "knots" comes from timing the movement of a ship relative to knots on a rope. The knots/rope are the computer.
Anything pretty much can be a computer.
Need to measure a distance now, but lack any scale or ruler?
Use a dollar bill, then at your leisure convert the dollars into the usual units of length.

The rope then is a ruler. You can consider the rope to be a component in a speed-calculating computer, but by itself the rope just lies there on the deck of the ship.

 

[Fudbucker]

No. That's just you.


I'm using her the way she is spoke.


Sure: The brain radiates. We can also express this by the factually and gramatically correct sentence "The brain is a radiator."


No, that's just you.


Only if you don't know what a computer does.


Evidence?


Computers can think and feel, and many of them are conscious.


All computers, by definition, think. All computers with real-world sensors feel. All computers programmed using reflective techniques (that is, many of them, and any complex real-time system with proper monitoring and failsafes) is conscious.

No-one won a Nobel prize for this because (a) there's no such prize and (b) it's not at all remarkable.

It's not that they did something magical, it's that thinking, feeling, and consciousness aren't magical either.

I admire the force of your convictions, but I don't think you'll have much support.

Again I ask, does anyone think feeling thinking conscious machines already exist? This is a skeptics' forum, is it not? I can't imagine such an assertion going unchallenged.

If anyone thinks so, I would like to know which particular computers are conscious, what evidence they base such an assertion on, and links to experts who agree with such a position. So far, the only links posted haven't supported this claim.

 

[PixyMisa]

If anyone thinks so, I would like to know which particular computers are conscious

Fallacy of division.

Edit: Sorry, my mistake. I misread Fudbucker's post.

 

[Fudbucker]

Fallacy of division.

How is that a fallacy? You said "many of them [computers] are conscious". I'm simply asking which computers are conscious.

 

[PixyMisa]

How is that a fallacy? You said "many of them [computers] are conscious". I'm simply asking which computers are conscious.

Whoops, sorry! My mistake, I somehow misread that as "components". That would be a fallacy of division... But that hardly matters, since it ain't what you wrote.

 

[Modified]

It's not clear at all. There are three ways (maybe more) "is" can be used:

Definitional:

Water IS H20.
They are one and the same. All instances of water are instances of H2O and vice-versa.

Property:

Water IS clear.
One of the properties of water is that it is clear.

Member of a set:

Water IS a liquid.
Water belongs to the set of all things that are liquid.

So, no it's not clear what "A brain is a computer" means.

The first two are ways "is", not "is a", can be used.

Water is a H2O. - No

Water is a clear. - No

Water is a liquid. - Yes

Honestly, how can you have a conversation in English if you don't know what "is a" means?

 

[Fudbucker]

The first two are ways "is", not "is a", can be used.

Water is a H2O. - No

Water is a clear. - No

Water is a liquid. - Yes

Honestly, how can you have a conversation in English if you don't know what "is a" means?

No:

A bachelor IS AN unmarried man.

That's a definitional claim.

In the same way, "a brain IS A computer" can be taken to mean two different things: equivalence, or a member of a set.

However, I think it's clear Pixy isn't making a definitional claim, but rather stating that a brain is a kind of computer. That raises the questions that have posed by other posters (which Pixy, to give him credit, has answered):

He claims a brain is a member of the set of computers that include CONSCIOUS, THINKING, FEELING machines.

The question is, does such a set actually exist? Pixy has the burden of proof, and IMHO, I don't think he's met it, or even come close to demonstrating such computers exist.

 

[PixyMisa]

However, I think it's clear Pixy isn't making a definitional claim, but rather stating that a brain is a kind of computer.

Well, they're really the same thing here, since computers are defined by their function.

That raises the questions that have posed by other posters (which Pixy, to give him credit, has answered):

He claims a brain is a member of the set of computers that include CONSCIOUS, THINKING, FEELING machines.

Yes.

The question is, does such a set actually exist?

Brains exist, and are computers, so trivially yes.

 

[PixyMisa]

In answer to your question of evidence:

Consciousness is the ability to think about your own thoughts. Self-awareness. Computer programs do this via the technique of reflection. Not all programs do this, but many complex and/or real-time systems do, because it's as useful a technique for computers as it is for animals.

Feeling is either awareness of of an abstract representation of sensory data, or the conscious reflection of the same. So again, many computers do this.

Thinking is just processing data, so all computers do this by definition.

 

[Belz...]

Hilarious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


wait... you are not joking.

You have provided no reason why your argument applies to brains and not to iPhones, Zen. I'm must pointing that out in the vain hope that perhaps you will explain yourself more succintly and make a coherent argument.

 

[Belz...]

Regarding a computer emulating a brain, why not ask me why a computer couldn't emulate my truck and get me to work every morning?

I'm sure you'll agree that a truck and a mind are two very different things and that comparing them like you did is not entirely relevant ?

If you mean they both change states according to a set of rules, well, everything in the universe does that.

Yeah but using that definition makes calling your PC "computer" also useless.

Do they really?

Not in the world I live in.

My brain does calculations. Computers do too. My brain does comparisons. Computers do too. My brain interfaces with my sensors and peripherals. Computers do too. Aero fits well in your purse. Milk ? Why not ?

 

[Belz...]

At the moment, we have no reason to believe -- and every reason not to believe -- that self-awareness is necessary for the production of color, sound, pain, and so forth.

Agreed. Awareness but not self-awareness. It kinda kills the idea of qualia, in a way.

We have no clue what the mechanism is, and currently no theory on which to base hypotheses.

That can't be right. Between you saying we know nothing about it, and Pixy saying we've got a firm grasp of it, there has to be a middle ground where reality lies.

 

[Belz...]

It's not clear at all.

I'm sorry, but if your grasp of the English language is that poor it will be difficult to have a discussion.

Water IS H20.
They are one and the same. All instances of water are instances of H2O and vice-versa.

Synonyms are like that.

Water IS a liquid.
Water belongs to the set of all things that are liquid.

No, no, no. You mean Water is a KIND of liquid, right ?

Or did you miss that it's like "Brain IS a computer" ?

So, no it's not clear what "A brain is a computer" means. However, it can't be an equivalence claim. I think you agree with that. Computers aren't brains.

Oh, brother.

 

[Belz...]

Third, it's just wrong. A functioning brain really is nothing like a computer:
- is made of neurons
- utilizes trinary
cbcl.mit.edu/cbcl/news/files/liu-tp-picower.
- communicates in digital AND ANALOGUE sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060412223937
- is self aware
- is conscious
- can imagine
- can feel
- thinks
- no software/hardware distinction

We get it, Fud. The brain is not A PC. No one is suggesting that.

 

[Belz...]

How can the brain INCLUDE a computer if you think the brain is a KIND of computer? Does a Mustang include a car???

It would be great if you could follow the discussion between me and Zen rather than jump at the end and, without context and unable to understand my post, decide to comment on it.

 

[PixyMisa]

But I can't cite any research demonstrating that the brain is not a computer

Because the brain is a computer.

Regarding a computer emulating a brain, why not ask me why a computer couldn't emulate my truck and get me to work every morning?

I'd rather ask you why you believe that's a coherent question.