On Consciousness

[!Kaggen]

Since you admit to not having the "hots" for math, it seems like you're ignoring it because you don't understand it.

You have that the wrong way around.

I don't have the 'hots' for maths because I understand it is a human invention.

 

[PixyMisa]

I'll let Roboramma answer this.

Yes, he was mocking the inanity of your post. Your point?

The discussion is clear.

Then why are you so confused about it?

Comp.lit's are defending a modernist version of Platonism where maths is the "magic bean" answer to consciousness and skeptics are pointing out that consciousness has less to do with the "magic math bean" and more to do with empirical studies.

Nope.

 

[tensordyne]

Let me get this straight: You're complaining that we're talking about physics when you want to talk about metaphysics?

Statements such as 'you are your brain function' and similar that come from comp.lit crowd are metaphysical as well as mystical. Figuring out a logical basis for studying consciousness is not metaphysics (in modern terms the study of the non-empirical aspects of reality, whatever those may be), it is epistemology (the study of how we 'know' things). I can understand the confusion though. Metaphysics and Epistemology are both areas of study in philosophy.

What fact?

The fact is that in terms of epistemology, sensation is primary. We use sensation and abstract thought to investigate phenomena that are external to us. The observer is not the focus. When investigating consciousness, the observer is the focus. That presents its own difficulties (some examples: How do I know your experience of red is the same as my experience of red? How do I know when someone reports not experiencing some event that it is not just a memory issue? etc...).

I see. So rather than pointing out a problem with the argument, you launch into a rambling ad-hominem attack against people to whom you ascribe a strawman argument of your own invention.

There are at least two possibilities when a set of people do not get an idea. One idea is that cultural bias gets in the way. The other is that the people are too dumb in some way to understand. Either way, it is still pretty annoying.

The message was mostly for Piggy (hence, I do not have to defend between the two of us that comp.lit is crazy) but I thought it would be a good idea to share. If it pisses you off that I think you are dumb in some way, sorry, at least I am being honest. I am sure you think the same of me, not that I really care.

 

[PixyMisa]

Statements such as 'you are your brain function' and similar that come from comp.lit crowd are metaphysical as well as mystical.

No.

 

[tsig]

Ignorance isn't knowledge.

The most common defense for believers is saying "I don't know and you don't either therefore god".

 

[tsig]

A post I meant to finish but didn't. Just some ideas.



I have found it annoying in the extreme myself. If you talk about the sensation of red they will talk about how many nanometers of light red corresponds to, which part of the brain gets activated when red is experienced (if you are lucky), etc., etc... without once acknowledging that red is first encountered and only then are objective ideas associated with it. In terms of epistemology, sensation is primary! There are major consequences to studying consciousness because of this fact.

Comp.lit want to start with objective ideas because that is a method that has worked so well in the past for science. Think of the world 'out there' as being the real center of attraction and come up with various ideas to encompass what is observed about it. When it comes to sensation and consciousness, it is no longer about 'out there', it is about 'in here'.

I wonder, I remember that on a video linked by Zeuzzz the topic of mirror neurons as it relates to autism was brought up. I do not think of comp.lits as dumb (just not wise per se), it seems like they do not have a full Theory of Mind or something (like my supposed autistic people missing mirror neurons, if such is the case). We could test this by doing autopsy studies of people who self-describe to various ideas associated with comp.lit (for it to be a real study the sample would have to be randomized as much as possible, so that the participants will be representative of the whole populace and not just comp.lit, but you get my drift I hope).

When the people in the study die, make note of how well developed the mirror neuron areas are in the various brains (or at least, observations of that kind). If the comp.lit's in the survey have less well developed mirror neuron areas than the rest of the participants, it would hopefully show them they are missing something from the conversation (I can not a priori get rid of the possibility that the mirror neurons in the comp.lit's are more developed than average as a possibility, but given their collective behavior, I find the possibility slim; however, that is the beauty of science, you can be shown to be wrong if you are intellectually honest).

Perhaps then comp.lits will listen if such was shown, but I doubt it. Like an ignorant blind child they want to tell everyone else with vision they are wrong, there is nothing going on. I would rather talk with those who have eyes that see (speaking metaphorically here, I have nothing against blind people).

You would like to talk about red without talking about red?

What is this red that doesn't have a wavelength or activate cells in the eye that sends signals to the brain?

 

[tsig]

You have that the wrong way around.

I don't have the 'hots' for maths because I understand it is a human invention.

So was that flying suit you were in awe of.

 

[tsig]

Statements such as 'you are your brain function' and similar that come from comp.lit crowd are metaphysical as well as mystical. Figuring out a logical basis for studying consciousness is not metaphysics (in modern terms the study of the non-empirical aspects of reality, whatever those may be), it is epistemology (the study of how we 'know' things). I can understand the confusion though. Metaphysics and Epistemology are both areas of study in philosophy.



The fact is that in terms of epistemology, sensation is primary. We use sensation and abstract thought to investigate phenomena that are external to us. The observer is not the focus. When investigating consciousness, the observer is the focus. That presents its own difficulties (some examples: How do I know your experience of red is the same as my experience of red? How do I know when someone reports not experiencing some event that it is not just a memory issue? etc...).



There are at least two possibilities when a set of people do not get an idea. One idea is that cultural bias gets in the way. The other is that the people are too dumb in some way to understand. Either way, it is still pretty annoying.

The message was mostly for Piggy (hence, I do not have to defend between the two of us that comp.lit is crazy) but I thought it would be a good idea to share. If it pisses you off that I think you are dumb in some way, sorry, at least I am being honest. I am sure you think the same of me, not that I really care.

The less one knows about a subject the easier it seems.

 

[Fudbucker]

Yes, and your differences were irrelevant because they only apply to _some_ computers.



Yes, and a plane imitating a bird isn't a bird, but it still flies.

There's a difference between imitating and simulating. Does a simulated plane fly?

 

[Belz...]

You have that the wrong way around.

I don't have the 'hots' for maths because I understand it is a human invention.

That's what I said.

 

[Belz...]

There's a difference between imitating and simulating. Does a simulated plane fly?

1) In the simulation, yes.
2) I expected someone would get caught by that word. Yes, in a way a plane emulates a bird flying, in the sense that it flies, like a bird, but it does not fly like a bird.

 

[AlBell]

There's a difference between imitating and simulating. Does a simulated plane fly?

IIRC, modern jet fighters require computers to actually fly, and cannot be effectively flown by a human; Airbus craft have also reached that point.

So in some sense 'yes'.

Regarding cosciousness, I agree that human level public behavior could be demonstrated by a computer controlled system of sensors and moving servers.

I, and others I suspect, quibble with private behavior, since that *is* my consciousness as I understand it. How does your computer system manage that, and how would anyone ever know it did?

As an aside my conscious thoughts are streams of words, which of course at times are interrupted by external stimuli needing attention.

 

[Fudbucker]

1) In the simulation, yes.

What does "in the simulation" mean? A simulation is just a bunch of code being run. So what's flying? The code? Transistors?

"Fly" is an action that can only apply to physical things. The simulated plane is SIMULATING flying, which is not the same thing. A simulated brain could engage in SIMULATED thinking or consciousness, which again, would not be the same thing.

2) I expected someone would get caught by that word. Yes, in a way a plane emulates a bird flying, in the sense that it flies, like a bird, but it does not fly like a bird.

But it flies. If you build a mechanical brain, it may think and feel. If you simulate a plane, it won't fly, so why should a simulated brain be able to think or feel?

 

[dlorde]

You'll know that you finally understand what a computer is when that video leaves you in awe.

Thanks for that - it's an extraordinary piece of work.

 

[Belz...]

What does "in the simulation" mean? A simulation is just a bunch of code being run.

And our world is just a bunch of subatomic particles running around. Your point ?

So what's flying? The code? Transistors?

The object "plane" in the simulation.

"Fly" is an action that can only apply to physical things.

Depends on your point of view. If you're in a simulation, you could never tell the difference.

The simulated plane is SIMULATING flying, which is not the same thing. A simulated brain could engage in SIMULATED thinking or consciousness, which again, would not be the same thing.

You are making a huge mistake, which is to assume that all these things are the same thing. If consciousness is computational, which it seems to be, then simulating consciousness creates consciousness. Think of it like this: when my computer makes a calculation, it doesn't actually add numbers, nor does it do so on a piece of paper with a pencil. And yet it calculates just as fine as I can, and faster, too. It doesn't 'simulate' calculations.

But it flies.

I just said that.

 

[dlorde]

In certain respects, it is like a computer. In other's it's not. I posted some differences earlier.

Never mind - I was hinting at the inherent contradiction in your statement, "if the brain is a computer (or a kind of computer), it's working in non-computerlike ways". If the brain is a computer, then it's working in computer-like ways by definition.

What about the computers below, posted by Pixy earlier - do you think they are working in non-computer-like ways?

and this

and this

To which I'll add this.

it's not evident that computers think, feel, and are conscious in any way.

Of course they can think and feel. Do you believe IBM's Watson and Deep Blue defeated the world's best thinkers in their fields at their own game without thinking? and how do you think the computers that control systems from cars to factories, from washing machines to power stations, can do that if they can't feel stuff?

I don't believe they're yet conscious by my preferred definition, but by Pixy's preferred definition they are. What is your preferred definition of consciousness? does it allow for artificial consciousness?

.. the brain is not a kind of computer we currently know of.

It computes, so it's a computer, and we currently know of it. You may not have realised that there were so many different forms of computer, and that the brain was one, but now you know

 

[dlorde]

Tell that to a vinyl collector.

There are many reasons why vinyl and digital media may sound different, but sampling frequency isn't one of them

 

[dlorde]

No, they are not wrong because conscious appreciation of music is not a matter of logic.

My take is that conscious appreciation of music is not just a matter of logic.

Can you admit that there is some logic in the conscious appreciation of music? [i.e. it is often possible to find logical explanations for aspects of the conscious appreciation of music].

 

[dlorde]

Let me get this straight: You're complaining that we're talking about physics when you want to talk about metaphysics?

Statements such as 'you are your brain function' and similar that come from comp.lit crowd are metaphysical as well as mystical.

Wait... the statement Pixy was referring to was to do with the sensation of red (below); nothing to do with the (fabricated) attribution you make above.

If you talk about the sensation of red they will talk about how many nanometers of light red corresponds to, which part of the brain gets activated when red is experienced (if you are lucky), etc., etc..

How about addressing the actual point in context?

 

[dlorde]

There's a difference between imitating and simulating. Does a simulated plane fly?

Exactly what is the difference between imitating and simulating?

Is computer Solitaire a game of cards if it doesn't have a real pack of cards? is playing onscreen computer chess a game of chess if it doesn't have a physical board or pieces? (is the computer opponent a chess player?)

Is the simulation of a wall clock currently on my screen a clock? It certainly tells the right time.