On Consciousness

[Belz...]

No it has nothing to do with fractals, sorry.

Best post in the threat so far. Nominated.

 

[Belz...]

The "basis of consciousness" and complexity each belong to different categories of subject.

Imagine you had a box inside of which, for whatever reason, we all agree consciousness is occurring. The box has dials on it that can be turned to affect the state of the consciousness.

If you already agree that it's conscious, then you're already one step further than you are now.

Joking aside, if your box can affect the consciousness, you already should have a good idea of how consciousness works even if you don't open the box.

 

[Belz...]

I can not make you understand that computation and consciousness are of two different categories, you just have to understand why on your own or not.

Another assertion. Replace "computation and consciousness" with "physics and god" and you might see how your post sounds.

 

[dlorde]

Best post in the threat so far...

+1

 

[Jeff Corey]

We understand that this is your belief. You need to understand that this is dualism, your position is logically incoherent, and you believe in magic.

No, no and no.

 

[PixyMisa]

No, no and no.

As much as I respect your opinion, yes. tensordyne is making a statement of dualism, he is a dualist, and he does believe in magic.

He says:

Experience of sensation is a phenomena that just exists.

"Just exists"?

He says:

In more general terms Gödel's incompleteness theorems:

are two theorems of mathematical logic that establish inherent limitations of all but the most trivial axiomatic systems capable of doing arithmetic.

We do not seem to be limited in the way above; computers are.

That's not just magic, that's necromancy. It's the abandonment of all logic and reason.

He says:

Imagine you had a box inside of which, for whatever reason, we all agree consciousness is occurring. The box has dials on it that can be turned to affect the state of the consciousness. Anything going on outside the box we can not agree on as far as consciousness goes.
...
Of course we can continue doing this indefinitely, creating bigger and bigger boxes all the way up as much as you want, and at each stage the computer would only be able to control and coordinate consciousness, never create it (as far as agreement is concerned). What if we open up the box though? Say we open it up and inside of it is a computer hooked up to another box. It would seem perverse to say then that the computer inside the box can do something the computers outside the box can not be agreed upon to do, which is create consciousness.

That's dualism. He's looking for the magic bean, and cannot conceive that no such thing is necessary. Well, partly because he ascribes logical impossibilities to the human intellect; once you've done that, any conversation on the subject is pretty much doomed.

 

[rocketdodger]

I must say that I support the computational model because I believe the brain is a computer, and not because it makes computations, such any physical interaction does. There is much more to a computer than computations.

Yes but we have to be specific as to why, though. I agree that the human brain is turing equivalent, for example, but I'm not entirely sure that turing equivalency is required for consciousness. The fact is, you can get a very complex neural network that has very complex behavior that isn't turing equivalent, at least on the face of things.

I suppose there might be a way to take a chipmunk brain, for example, and somehow "trick" the chipmunk into executing the turing equivalent operations by disguising acorns as instructions or whatever, but even then it isn't clear to me that it would work.

Furthermore I don't think the notion of computation needs to be necessarily linked with turing equivalency, because the fact is we can have computations without turing equivalency. A small number of transistors ( 1, in fact ) can execute a "computation" yet many more are required for full turing equivalency.

Also it seems like having such a strict notion of what a "computer" is will preclude many things we ( well, I ) consider computers, like cells.

So my position is that computation occurs in a ton of places, but things like cells, computers, and brains, are just very very very good at it, whereas rocks and bowls of soup are not so good at it. This follows from the notion of computation being a form of complexity reduction. In that sense, yes the brain is a "computer" like a computer is a "computer" but not because what is going on in the brain is qualitatively different from what goes on in a bowl of soup but rather because it is just much more organized -- like a "computer."

And I am also convinced that no amount of computations will necessarily lead to consciousness.

Agreed. However we can be sure that the inverse is true, that there is a required threshold amount of computations necessary for consciousness.

 

[rocketdodger]

Best post in the threat so far. Nominated.

Note that this is just a formal definition of the behavior Pixy ( well, anyone with common sense ) calls "switching."

You can thank westprog for forcing me to come up with it !!

 

[steenkh]

Yes but we have to be specific as to why, though. I agree that the human brain is turing equivalent, for example, but I'm not entirely sure that turing equivalency is required for consciousness. The fact is, you can get a very complex neural network that has very complex behavior that isn't turing equivalent, at least on the face of things.

I agree. Your comment opened my eyes to something that has been nagging me for some time that I could not spot. I think that because all neural networks can be simulated on a computer, I falsely drew the conclusion that all neural networks would be Turing equivalent.

It may interest the reader here that in the June 2012 issue of Scientific American, there is an article about the endeavour to build a complete computer simulation of a brain (this is behind a paywall, sorry). I found it particularly interesting that they want the simulated brain to grow from a few cells to full size just like the real one, and that is a neat solution to the problem that it is impossible to trace every single neural pathway in a grown-up brain. Apparently, they have found that in nature, the brain consists of building blocks of "brain columns", and when a brain grows, it just adds more and more columns, and the wrinkling, neural pathways and all comes naturally.

Our knowledge of brains and cells is of course not complete, but the simulation will be on the level of single proteins working within the cells, and when new knowledge comes up, the simulation will be upgraded. The first target is a functioning rat or mouse brain, but it is expected that even this smallish target is outside the reach of present computers.

Agreed. However we can be sure that the inverse is true, that there is a required threshold amount of computations necessary for consciousness.

I agree.

 

[Belz...]

Note that this is just a formal definition of the behavior Pixy ( well, anyone with common sense ) calls "switching."

You can thank westprog for forcing me to come up with it !!

Necessity is the mother of invention.

 

[annnnoid]

As much as I respect your opinion, yes. tensordyne is making a statement of dualism, he is a dualist, and he does believe in magic.

May we conclude that the term ‘magic’ applies to everything that we currently do not posses a definitive understanding of.

A few examples:

- gravity
- dark matter
- dreaming
- the constitution / size / origin / fate of the universe
- what is the explicit scientific mechanism of human logic and reason (so is the philosophy of science physics, or metaphysics? [is physics physics, or metaphysics?])
- what explains the relationship between math and the universe it occurs in


Dennet may have his flaws but it was not for nothing that he describes consciousness as the last remaining mystery. A mystery is something that exists that we do not have (or have not achieved) the capacity to comprehend the existence of. Zeuzzz is actually closest to identifying the solution. Consciousness is a condition of being. We may not know what we exist as, but we sure exist as something. The proof is simply that we can ask the question…not because we can answer it. We exist as the ability to experience… sensation IOW…it’s what we are if there is a word for what we are. Tangentially…there seems to be two defining axis to this condition of sensation…both of which are fundamentally interrelated: intensity…how much of something the experience exists as / means…and integrity…the authenticity of the experience / meaning. I wonder to what degree the existence of these realities can be programmed? Call it all computation if you like, that merely begs the question. Logically, comprehension of a condition of being can only be accomplished within a greater condition of being…not an ever more complicated arrangement of models of an existing one.

But that’s metaphysics…and metaphysics ultimately lacks any intelligible coherency (within the condition that currently produces it). Oddly enough, metaphysics can vanish, but we remain. Wonder why? The meaning of meaninglessness…or something ridiculously unscientific like that. Sounds positively Zeuzzzian!

 

[Mr. Scott]

Best post in the threat so far. Nominated.

Me likey post, nominate too!

 

[Mr. Scott]

endeavour to build a complete computer simulation of a brain

I suppose when they fire up the simulation that's close to human brain complexity, one of the first things it might say could be, "I'm noticing something curious. When I look at something that I know reflects red light, it doesn't seem to have a subjective quality of "redness." Why, Dave?

 

[rocketdodger]

Apparently, they have found that in nature, the brain consists of building blocks of "brain columns", and when a brain grows, it just adds more and more columns, and the wrinkling, neural pathways and all comes naturally.

Yes, neuron axons and dendrites grow along chemical gradients laid down during ( fetal ) development.

You may have heard that babies have far denser brains than adults, well that is because our DNA can't contain all the information needed to actually specify the brain. What happens is a zillion neurons grow along these gradients, not knowing for sure if the dendrites and synapses will actually be used ( how could they know ? ), and as we grow after being born, the connections that just won't ever be used sort of senesce and are removed.

The actual neural pathways encoded in DNA is almost trivially simple compared to the final network topology of a developed brain, and that isn't even counting the complexity introduced by changing synapse strengths, which is where most of our adult consciousness comes from anyway.

 

[Zeuzzz]

You ever been to burning man, pixy?

You would so totally be Hal in this malcolm in the middle episode. You would draw quite a crowd for your artistic portrayal of the shortcomings and banality of the modern materialistic suburban dad by simply being yourself.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0640293/

Burning Man (30 Sep. 2005)
TV Episode - 30 min - Comedy
8.4 Your rating: -/10 Ratings: 8.4/10 from 106 users
Reviews: write review
The family joins the Burning Man Festival, where Reese and Lois find creative freedom, Malcolm finds love, Hal finds a big audience and Dewey find himself doing all the chores.

Flipping hippies, eh?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Pixy is right, Tensor. If the EM field theory is correct, and it is interesting at least, our consciousness would be disrupted by a lot of things we interact with every day. It's easily falsified.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5HFZpMaWe0#at=60

Check the experiment he does at three minutes. Stopping one side of the brain functioning to a certain extent by transcranial magnetic stimulation, so they see more of reality than they usually would.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Curious: If you were to measure the the length of a coastline (Belz, Pixy) would you factor in the tides and waves in your measurement? Or adhere to a more rigid quantised and quantifiable criterion to make the measurement?

 

[PixyMisa]

You ever been to burning man, pixy?

You would so totally be Hal in this malcolm in the middle episode. You would draw quite a crowd for your artistic portrayal of the shortcomings and banality of the modern materialistic suburban dad by simply being yourself.

And yet, I am right and you are wrong. Do you even stop to wonder why that is? Why your statements of fact aren't and your logic isn't either?

Check the experiment he does at three minutes. Stopping one side of the brain functioning to a certain extent by transcranial magnetic stimulation, so they see more of reality than they usually would.

The brain contains multiple filter cascades. If you actually turned them all off, you'd get a seizure.

You also become dysfunctional: Those filters are there for a reason. The common thread we find in savants and geniuses is the same that we find in autism spectrum disorders: Such people don't cope well with everyday life, because they can't filter out the noise.

Curious: If you were to measure the the length of a coastline (Belz, Pixy) would you factor in the tides and waves in your measurement? Or adhere to a more rigid quantised and quantifiable criterion to make the measurement?

I'd do what is actually requested, rather than making stuff up.

 

[Zeuzzz]

I'd do what is actually requested, rather than making stuff up.

How would you do it then, "as requested"?

 

[PixyMisa]

How would you do it then, "as requested"?

Rather depends on exactly what the request is, dunnit? I'd probably start by telling them to define the request properly.