On Consciousness

[Jeff Corey]

Well, one side (the computationalists, and Jeff Corey) is discussing science. The other side is doing anything in their power to avoid discussing science, which makes for rather a skewed dialogue.

You omitted Dancing David from the empirical-behaviorist side. He's in the frontlines of applied behavior analysis (ABA), moreso than I am at the present.

 

[PixyMisa]

You omitted Dancing David from the empirical-behaviorist side. He's in the frontlines of applied behavior analysis (ABA), moreso than I am at the present.

Okay, no problem. Whatever label he chooses, he's clearly on the side of science and rationality.

 

[Fudbucker]

Well, one side (the computationalists, and Jeff Corey) is discussing science. The other side is doing anything in their power to avoid discussing science, which makes for rather a skewed dialogue.

Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall you posting any links to experts in relevant fields that agree with your claims:
1) consciousness is computational
2) computers are conscious (and have been for some time?)
3) consciousness is self-referential information processing

 

[PixyMisa]

Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall you posting any links to experts in relevant fields that agree with your claims:
1) consciousness is computational
2) computers are conscious (and have been for some time?)
3) consciousness is self-referential information processing

See Dennett, Hofstadter, and in particular Henry Markam^WP, director of the Blue Brain^WP project. There are some very interesting videos of his talks on Youtube; I can dig up the links and post them again if you want.

But the point isn't quote mining; the point is that the computationalist position is incontrovertible given established theories of physics and mathematics. You cannot escape the possibility of a conscious computer - at most you can argue about the form it will take.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Assuming (for the sake of argument) that consciousness can be implemented in some form of hardware other than a brain... any guesses about what else can?

However we may deny it, there truly does seem something rather odd about a bunch of gel cells producing self-referential models of themselves in abstract space.
(At least it seems a bit unlikely to this particular bundle of cells).

If this truly can be sim / emu / copyulated* in a computer, I do wonder whether some paranormal abilities may be quite so improbable in the same environment. (A machine can be equipped with a magnetic sense, a radio sense and other abilities which in humans would be truly extra-sensory). Machines can also "concentrate" on one task and do not tire of repetition, so chanting a mantra at incredible rates and printing the nine billion names of god are well within their abilities.

I have often suspected Windows of existing simultaneously in several parallel universes.

Seriously though- it's likely machines may someday be able to do things indistinguishable from magic, but might they actually be capable of things that ( in humans) would be real magic?
*No rodents were misspelled in the creation of this word.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Seriously though- it's likely machines may someday be able to do things indistinguishable from magic, but might they actually be capable of things that ( in humans) would be real magic?

Humans can already. Behold as I send you this message across a great distance, in the blink of an eye!

 

[tsig]

Humans can already. Behold as I send you this message across a great distance, in the blink of an eye!

Yep, thanks to technology we can miscommunicate instantly.

 

[quarky]

Assuming (for the sake of argument) that consciousness can be implemented in some form of hardware other than a brain... any guesses about what else can?

However we may deny it, there truly does seem something rather odd about a bunch of gel cells producing self-referential models of themselves in abstract space.
(At least it seems a bit unlikely to this particular bundle of cells).

If this truly can be sim / emu / copyulated* in a computer, I do wonder whether some paranormal abilities may be quite so improbable in the same environment. (A machine can be equipped with a magnetic sense, a radio sense and other abilities which in humans would be truly extra-sensory). Machines can also "concentrate" on one task and do not tire of repetition, so chanting a mantra at incredible rates and printing the nine billion names of god are well within their abilities.

I have often suspected Windows of existing simultaneously in several parallel universes.

Seriously though- it's likely machines may someday be able to do things indistinguishable from magic, but might they actually be capable of things that ( in humans) would be real magic?
*No rodents were misspelled in the creation of this word.

That was quite awesome, Mr. S. Sam.


I can't believe i didn't bail on this thread when I said I would. Shame on me.

Now I'm mr. woo again, for having an open mind. The horse I have in this race, if any, is the objection to the cock-sure materialists and their rather weak case...which, ultimately, serves no possible purpose...at least any that I can see.

I object to the urge to take sides; to villianize or worship a view point; to self-identify with certain opinions to the point of ignorance or lack of curiosity. In this regard, and others, I'm the exemplary scientist here.

Sometimes, it feels like Pixy and others are actually out playing beach volleyball (hope so) and their bots are programmed to write "No".
"No". "Wrong" "Not even wrong" and so forth.

How do we manage to get so arrogant about a subject matter like this?
Do you even hear yourselves?
This isn't like a discussion of young Earth or hollow earth or wrong math.
Its up for debate.

I've been tagged as a wooster because i disapprove of some anti-trust violations of Monsanto on other threads. I'm also a big fan of high energy efficiency in regards to global warming. So I'm tagged as a wooster, which is really aggravating, and makes me suspicious of certain knee jerk assumptions of 2 dimensional quazi-science geeks.

This is too weird for me. I don't like to be annoyed. If Pixy knew that I'm consulted by the top engineering firm in the U.S., maybe he'd be less of an ass. Not sure what to say about rocketdodger.

But, hey.. Soapy is cool, for sure.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Yep, thanks to technology we can miscommunicate instantly.

Oh, I know he's really asking about the flexibility of intelligence, and from what we know of the cortex it's pretty damned robust. Blinded people begin to remap their visual cortex to do more spatial processing after about a week. Whenever you get into a car you're comfortable enough with, your sense of spatial self-awareness literally extends to cover the car, such that judging whether you have room to back up takes no more attention than judging if an object is within arm's reach.

However, the post describing all this would not have been as entertaining to write.

 

[Belz...]

Assuming (for the sake of argument) that consciousness can be implemented in some form of hardware other than a brain... any guesses about what else can?

I'm not sure I understand your question. Hardware + life forms = pretty much the whole set of stuff we could see as conscious, no ?

 

[Dancing David]

Okay, no problem. Whatever label he chooses, he's clearly on the side of science and rationality.

For a pagan atheist I do alright, I am an armchair psychologist at best.

 

[Dancing David]

I have often suspected Windows of existing simultaneously in several parallel universes.

Only one universe, although it is nice to think of another universe where Windows always works well.

 

[Mr. Scott]

I've also learned a lot in the past 4 years here, but I was referring to this thread in my objection. To me, its a philosophical debate.
Maybe you're just having a bad hair day, and I'll let it go at that.

Most threads I propose seem to straddle two or more categories.

Whether or not, and how, a conscious machine can be engineered is the science/math/med/tech focus of my interest, but there's no escaping the philosophical, psychological, and religious entanglements in conversations about consciousness. Let's just accept that and carry on.

If there's any science suggesting computed consciousness is impossible, I'd really like to hear about it.

 

[PixyMisa]

Now I'm mr. woo again, for having an open mind.

You don't have an open mind. Or at least, not open to the evidence.

How do we manage to get so arrogant about a subject matter like this?

We're not arrogant at all. We're just right. If you have a counter-argument, or even a question, go for it. But if you just want to trot out your tiresome little strawmen, well, we've already seen plenty of those, thanks all the same.

 

[Fudbucker]

See Dennett, Hofstadter, and in particular henry MarkHam^WP, director of the Blue Brain^WP project.

Regarding relevant: Dennett is a philosopher. How does that make him an expert on consciousness? There are plenty of philosophers who disagree with Dennett, esp. with respect to qualia. Generally, when someone quotes a philosopher to support a scientific principle, they are already on thin ice.

Hofstadter is a physicist and mathematician, so I also question his relevancy to the discussion. Markham is, what, a programmer? Doesn't show up on Google, so I don't know his field of specialty.

None of the experts you cite are qualified to talk in depth about the one class of things that we know produces the phenomenon of consciousness: brains. That should make you pause, especially when you accuse others of not being scientific. AFAIK only Piggy has quoted experts (whose expertise is brain research) who support his position.

Give me some experts, who actually study the brain, that agree with you. One of the signs of woo is quoting "experts" who deviate way outside their field, wouldn't you agree?

But the point isn't quote mining; the point is that the computationalist position is incontrovertible given established theories of physics and mathematics. You cannot escape the possibility of a conscious computer - at most you can argue about the form it will take.

I'm not trying to escape it. I think it eventually will happen. I question the assertion that it's already happened, that consciousness is SRIP and computational. You're not giving me much to go on. Until you cite experts who actually study the brain, your assertions won't count for much.

 

[dlorde]

... Seriously though- it's likely machines may someday be able to do things indistinguishable from magic, but might they actually be capable of things that ( in humans) would be real magic?

Machines can already do things that humans can't do (that's the raison d'etre for many or most of them), so what do you mean by 'real magic' (for humans) ?? An example would help.

 

[Belz...]

None of the experts you cite are qualified to talk in depth about the one class of things that we know produces the phenomenon of consciousness: brains.

Is that kinda like the only thing that we knew produced the phenomenon of flight: wings ?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Markham is, what, a programmer? Doesn't show up on Google, so I don't know his field of specialty.

That would be Henry Markram, whose field of specialty is computational modeling of the brain on one of the world's largest supercomputers. What we've been talking about here, he's beginning to do.

It's good to see you've been keeping up with the thread. I'm curious to know if the last few pages have been informative at all regarding cautious language and its tendency (however well-meaning) to invite dualistic arguments in informal settings.

 

[rocketdodger]

I've also learned a lot in the past 4 years here, but I was referring to this thread in my objection. To me, its a philosophical debate.
Maybe you're just having a bad hair day, and I'll let it go at that.

Well if you ignore all the science, of course you will think it is a philosophical debate.

 

[rocketdodger]

AFAIK only Piggy has quoted experts (whose expertise is brain research) who support his position.

I know for a fact that I have pointed out to you, at least twice, that the experts Piggy has quoted do not actually support his position. Piggy quote-mines to find "suppport" for his "position."

So by now I think your posts are purposefully dishonest.

However that doesn't mean Pixy's experts are any more relevant, so how about this -- why don't you actually read up on the experts that Piggy suggested, and you will see that those of Piggy's experts that do "brain research" actually support the computational model. Which means Piggy's experts actually support the opposite position of Piggy, which is pretty funny, but that is par for the course here.