On Consciousness

[annnnoid]

We think we know so much, but we know so little.

No, that's just you.

…apparently not…

All I know is that I know nothing.
Socrates

 

[Clive]

What, exactly, is 'absolutely nothing'? - is it different from non-absolutely nothing?

"Nothing will come of nothing..." King Lear

I used "absolute" to be as clear as I could that I did not merely mean some other interpretation of "nothing" such as "empty space", or even "space without time" and so on. So far as it is imaginable, I meant the kind of "nothing" that permits no form of "something" or "anything else" to be "there", no god, not quantum field, no space, no time, no mathematics, no patterns, nil, none, zip, nothing.

Do you think such a thing could be "physically possible"? How about "logically" or "mathematically"?

Language is often ambiguous. What do you think King Lear meant?

 

[PixyMisa]

Do you claim that is it strictly "physically impossible" for any human brain to do any kind of "computations" or "cognitive tasks" that can't be achieved by any theoretical Turing Complete computing system?

How about the same question but substituting "logically impossible" or "mathematically impossible"?

Depends on the task.

If a task is mathematically impossible (e.g. the ever popular end-run around Godel's incompleteness theorems) then it's likewise mathematically impossible for the brain.

Other tasks may be bounded only by the laws of physics; if the Universe were not quantised, there might be some wiggle room to argue that the brain is more powerful than algorithmic computing. But the Universe is quantised, so it can't be.

 

[PixyMisa]

…apparently not…

All I know is that I know nothing.
Socrates

Yeah, and look where that got him.

 

[annnnoid]

I used "absolute" to be as clear as I could that I did not merely mean some other interpretation of "nothing" such as "empty space", or even "space without time" and so on. So far as it is imaginable, I meant the kind of "nothing" that permits no form of "something" or "anything else" to be "there", no god, not quantum field, no space, no time, no mathematics, no patterns, nil, none, zip, nothing.

Do you think such a thing could be "physically possible"? How about "logically" or "mathematically"?

Language is often ambiguous. What do you think King Lear meant?

As simply as possible....King Lear meant something.

As for your questions...I'd speculate that something that exists cannot examine the existence of something that doesn't. As far as I know, 'nothing' has never been known to occur (at least nowhere near where I live). But then there is the nagging question of...out there. What actually does occupy all that empty space? How empty is it? Are there regions of....nothing? If so...what would happen if 'something' went there?

 

[annnnoid]

Yeah, and look where that got him.

…recognized throughout the world and history as one of the founders of western philosophy. Credited as the origin of methods of discussion and examination still in extensive use to this day.

….but besides that…a nobody.

How to know nothing? Could it be that Socrates had somehow encountered the elusive 'nothing' Clive is referring to. The meaningless meaning....and it is I! Zip ...down the rabbit hole again. What is the truth of intelligibility after all, mathematical, logical, or otherwise?

 

[PixyMisa]

…recognized throughout the world and history as one of the founders of western philosophy. Credited as the origin of methods of discussion and examination still in extensive use to this day.

I was thinking along the lines of dead.

Anyway, the Socratic method isn't about not knowing anything, it's about a well-informed and insightful pattern of questioning that elicits the desired answer from the subject without appearing to impart the required information directly.

This doesn't work (a) the questioner actually doesn't know the answer, or (b) the subject is convinced that he does, but is wrong.

In other words, when Socrates said All I know is that I know nothing. he was lying to impart a particular philosophical point.

How to know nothing? Could it be that Socrates had somehow encountered the elusive 'nothing' Clive is referring to. The meaningless meaning....and it is I! Zip ...down the rabbit hole again. What is the truth of intelligibility after all, mathematical, logical, or otherwise?

No, much simpler: He was just lying.

 

[steenkh]

We can't say there is nothing that is mathematically and logically impossible because we don't even know what that means.

Perhaps it could mean mathematically and logically false? In that case I believe we can say it does not exist. Correct me if i am wrong, but Gödel's incompleteness theorem is not an uncertainty theorem; it does not say that there are some false statements that are true, it says that there are some true statements that we cannot derive with a formal system.

 

[steenkh]

I'd speculate that something that exists cannot examine the existence of something that doesn't.

By definition something that does not exist does not exist, so it would rather futile to speculate on its existence.

 

[Belz...]

…apparently not…

All I know is that I know nothing.
Socrates

And this is why science replaced philosophy.

 

[Belz...]

Do you claim that is it strictly "physically impossible" for any human brain to do any kind of "computations" or "cognitive tasks" that can't be achieved by any theoretical Turing Complete computing system?

Seems to be a given.

 

[Clive]

Depends on the task.

If a task is mathematically impossible (e.g. the ever popular end-run around Godel's incompleteness theorems) then it's likewise mathematically impossible for the brain.

Other tasks may be bounded only by the laws of physics; if the Universe were not quantised, there might be some wiggle room to argue that the brain is more powerful than algorithmic computing. But the Universe is quantised, so it can't be.

Says who? Oh. Yeah. PixyMisa...

Saying it doesn't make it necessarily true. Newton presumably didn't think so. Nor did Einstein.

Would you bet your life that all relevant attributes of the Universe are "quantised"? Is it "logically" or "mathematically" or "physically" possible that at least one is not?

 

[dlorde]

Do you think such a thing could be "physically possible"? How about "logically" or "mathematically"?

No, I don't think it means anything to to talk of the nothing you describe to be 'physically possible', any more than the 'other side' of a Mobius strip or the 'outside' of a Klein bottle. I think the fact that stuff exists invalidates that kind of nothing - it can only be described in terms of the absence of what does exist. Logically or mathematically, I don't think there's a problem. Logic and maths can address non-physical concepts and ideas.

Language is often ambiguous. What do you think King Lear meant?

In context, he meant that Cordelia could not expect her inheritance unless she offered words he deemed worthy of it (flattery, declaration of love, etc). It can be interpreted more generally as in terms of reciprocity, action and reaction; and in human terms: no response without stimulus, investment brings returns, you only get out what you put in, you must earn your crust, no pain no gain, you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours, one good turn deserves another, and so-on.

 

[Clive]

Seems to be a given.

You (and PixyMisa) appear to believe that humankind has basically got it all figured out already... and there's no chance that the current understanding of physics will turn out to be something that is either incomplete or perhaps even incorrect in some important details.

Let me ask you something.

Do you believe that there is necessarily a finite "Theory of Everything" waiting to be discovered, and that when/if that is finally uncovered then (in principle) there will be nothing within "the Universe" that cannot be fully understood and perhaps even "perfectly" simulated?

If yes, why? I mean, why are you drawn to that idea as opposed to the alternative that there is no "bottom level" set of rules and so it really is a case of "turtles all the way down"?

 

[dlorde]

.. the Universe is quantised...

Saying it doesn't make it necessarily true. Newton presumably didn't think so. Nor did Einstein.

For Einstein, that would be ironic if true, as he got his Nobel prize for postulating the quantization of light (in the face of scepticism from Planck & Bohr), and followed by proposing the quantization of atomic oscillation. It was the probabilistic aspects of QM he was uncomfortable with.

 

[dlorde]

Seems to be a given.

You (and PixyMisa) appear to believe that humankind has basically got it all figured out already... and there's no chance that the current understanding of physics will turn out to be something that is either incomplete or perhaps even incorrect in some important details.

That's a non-sequitur. You asked if it was impossible that the brain's computations could not be achieved by theoretical Turing Complete computing system. It 'seems to be a given', because 'Turing Complete' generally means just that; i.e. it is equivalent to any real-world computer, and if the brain computes it is a real-world computer.

 

[Clive]

For Einstein, that would be ironic if true, as he got his Nobel prize for postulating the quantization of light (in the face of scepticism from Planck & Bohr), and followed by proposing the quantization of atomic oscillation. It was the probabilistic aspects of QM he was uncomfortable with.

Did Einstein believe the space-time continuum was quantised?

 

[Clive]

That's a non-sequitur. You asked if it was impossible that the brain's computations could not be achieved by theoretical Turing Complete computing system. It 'seems to be a given', because 'Turing Complete' generally means just that; i.e. it is equivalent to any real-world computer, and if the brain computes it is a real-world computer.

I think you need to read what I asked more carefully.

Let me put it in a slightly different way.

I claim that it is at least possible that biological brains (including obviously, human brains) may be able to accomplish something that a Universal Turing machine cannot, even in a theoretical sense. I'm not talking about purely "plumbing" type capabilities such as being able to absorb nutrients from blood or whatever, but rather the kinds of things (whatever they may be) that may be needed to achieve consciousness, self-awareness, and similar.

I'm not saying that I have any reason to believe this is necessarily very likely - just that it at least possible.

 

[Dancing David]

I used "absolute" to be as clear as I could that I did not merely mean some other interpretation of "nothing" such as "empty space", or even "space without time" and so on. So far as it is imaginable, I meant the kind of "nothing" that permits no form of "something" or "anything else" to be "there", no god, not quantum field, no space, no time, no mathematics, no patterns, nil, none, zip, nothing.

Do you think such a thing could be "physically possible"? How about "logically" or "mathematically"?

Language is often ambiguous. What do you think King Lear meant?

Who says the universe came from nothing?

 

[Dancing David]

You (and PixyMisa) appear to believe that humankind has basically got it all figured out already... and there's no chance that the current understanding of physics will turn out to be something that is either incomplete or perhaps even incorrect in some important details.

False dichotomy and presumption.

There is little chance of any extra in the brain and consciousness than the biochemistry of neurons however.

Of course the current state of physics is incomplete and what relevance does that have to the discussion?

There is no evidence that the brain and consciousness is more than biochemistry.

Burden on claimant otherwise.

Let me ask you something.

Do you believe that there is necessarily a finite "Theory of Everything" waiting to be discovered, and that when/if that is finally uncovered then (in principle) there will be nothing within "the Universe" that cannot be fully understood and perhaps even "perfectly" simulated?

And that has what to do with the discussion of consciousness, god of the gaps ?

Where is your evidence, put it on the table.

There is no evidence of any events in consciousness that are not biochemistry.

If yes, why? I mean, why are you drawn to that idea as opposed to the alternative that there is no "bottom level" set of rules and so it really is a case of "turtles all the way down"?

Seriously?

Oh my.

How exactly did Millikan not measure the mass of an electron?