On Consciousness

[quarky]

Because the further one quark gets from it's buddies, the stronger the force pulling it back to them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymptotic_freedom



Wait, why are you allowed to break all the rules? Why didn't I get the memo? It seems I've been missing out on a lot of fun

I don't quite get it: you're saying that before the big bang (if such a thing even means anything) the laws of physics as we know them didn't apply, therefore after the big bang they also don't apply, so you could have a quark that behaves any way you like, and thus maybe there's only one quark just acting funny?

(that's how I read that, please correct if I'm bungling things)

Wanted to answer this.

If there's only one quark acting funny, it doesn't have to act funny for people that want it to act stupid, or serious, or whatever.

It is completely at our service, with no hint of any moral agenda.
It is quite happy to prove its own non-existence, if that's what we ask of it.

For me, its funny.

Or it was, before I tried to explain this.

(sigh)

The big bang could be seen as the big motion of the little thingy.
Crazy as that may sound, the big bang is like an old religion.

Oh, crap.

That makes me sound like a Mormon.
Actually, I'm a recovering Catholic.

Hope that clears up stuff.

 

[Mr. Scott]

...oh look, evidence of....something. So who judged the judges...or is everyone considered equal in their ability to definitively adjudicate the veracity of the human condition? Yes...no...don't know? Science by wishful thinking is it? Is the Turing test even science?

Yes, you don't like the judgment, so you think the judging must have been flawed.

Let's discuss the article instead of indulging in partisan hatred.

Say, you're the judge. You play a computer game against some onscreen opponents. You are told that some of them are controlled by people, and some are controlled by a computer program. You are asked to judge which is which. You find that the opponents you thought were human-controlled were more likely to be controlled by the computer program. That was the experience of the judges.

What could cause that?

It'd go with super-normal stimulus. Whatever signals you'd pick up that tell you it's human might be magnified in the computer program. This phenomenon happens a lot in nature. For example, some flowers make simulated female wasps that real male wasps may prefer to mate with over real female wasps. How the plant does this is duplicate the attributes of female wasps that the males respond to, but exaggerate them. A computer could be programmed to do this with cues to humanness in a game opponent.

Here's a hypothetical example. We create a robot hand, controlled either by a computer program, or by a transmitting glove in another room controlled by a person. We ask the person or a computer program to use the robot hand to stroke the judge's hand in a loving manner. The judge's assignment is to pick which times the robot hand was controlled by the computer, and which times it was controlled by the person. Both the person and the computer programmers do their best to be judged as having the most human, most loving touch.

What the programmers can do is figure out what kinds of motion patterns signal the human loving touch, and amplify them. A judge might easily be fooled by a computer that is exaggerating the loving touch.

How it relates to consciousness is, it brings up the Philosopher's Zombie question. If an unconscious mechanical person acted exactly like (or more like?) a real conscious person, how could you tell it wasn't conscious?

 

[quarky]

One of the signs of bogus consciousness is these awkward tests.

If you'd ever been in court, you'd know not to stroke the judge's hand in a loving matter.

Christ, it cost me an extra 3 months.

 

[annnnoid]

Yes, you don't like the judgment, so you think the judging must have been flawed.

I couldn’t care less about the judgment. There are holes in it big enough to drive a pacific ocean through. What concerns me are the idiotic conclusions that so many people jump to when encountering results such as these.

I notice you didn’t answer the question: Is everyone considered equal in their ability to definitively adjudicate the veracity of the human condition?

If an unconscious mechanical person acted exactly like (or more like?) a real conscious person, how could you tell it wasn't conscious?

Which ‘real conscious person’ are you talking about? The fact that you think it doesn’t matter is significant.

Is human behavior rational? Yes…or no?

As for how I might determine the authenticity of the ‘thing’…I would simply ask it (are you a real human being?). Real human beings have this thing that they don’t like to lie.

 

[Pulvinar]

As for how I might determine the authenticity of the ‘thing’…I would simply ask it (are you a real human being?). Real human beings have this thing that they don’t like to lie.

It may not know that it itself isn't human, and so wouldn't be lying.

How could it not know? Same way that a human brain may not know that it itself is an information processor...

 

[quarky]

I couldn’t care less about the judgment. There are holes in it big enough to drive a pacific ocean through. What concerns me are the idiotic conclusions that so many people jump to when encountering results such as these.

I notice you didn’t answer the question: Is everyone considered equal in their ability to definitively adjudicate the veracity of the human condition?




Which ‘real conscious person’ are you talking about? The fact that you think it doesn’t matter is significant.

Is human behavior rational? Yes…or no?

As for how I might determine the authenticity of the ‘thing’…I would simply ask it (are you a real human being?). Real human beings have this thing that they don’t like to lie.

Actually, real humans love to lie.

Its the style of the lying that gives it away.

Lady Gaga and Justin Bieber, for instance, are obviously computer generated.

Me, not so much.

 

[Roboramma]

And more so, that we know almost nothing about the planet we live on, much less mars. We may actually know more about mars.
The vast majority of the solid surface of our planet remains completely unexplored.
The deeper innards, even less.

Hey quarky, I like your posts: you write well (which is why I've nominated quite a few of your posts in the past) and have some interesting ideas that make me think. But did you notice that you have twice basically ignored what I was saying? I brought up mars as an example to help express what I was saying, not to get into whether we know a great deal about mars or not. I mean if we don't address each other's points its not a discussion, it's just two (well, more than two) guys talking into the wind.

The point I was making (twice) was simply that in order to say "we know almost nothing" or the opposite "we have almost everything figured out!" you have to have some way to quantify knowledge so that you can compare what we know now with what is left to discover.

Do you agree with that? If you disagree, why?

 

[quarky]

Hey quarky, I like your posts: you write well (which is why I've nominated quite a few of your posts in the past) and have some interesting ideas that make me think. But did you notice that you have twice basically ignored what I was saying? I brought up mars as an example to help express what I was saying, not to get into whether we know a great deal about mars or not. I mean if we don't address each other's points its not a discussion, it's just two (well, more than two) guys talking into the wind.

The point I was making (twice) was simply that in order to say "we know almost nothing" or the opposite "we have almost everything figured out!" you have to have some way to quantify knowledge so that you can compare what we know now with what is left to discover.

Do you agree with that? If you disagree, why?

I'm sorry if I failed to address your legitimate concerns and queries.

I totally agree with your assessment regarding the quantification of the ratio between our knowiness and our unknowiness.

I'm not claiming to know anything.
I just like to toss crap out there, because I can't help it.
Its what I do.

Now, would you please nominate one of my posts here, even if you disagree with their premise, just because of my premise-busting nature?
Or because I find you way cool?

Please?

 

[Mr. Scott]

I couldn’t care less about the judgment. There are holes in it big enough to drive a pacific ocean through. What concerns me are the idiotic conclusions that so many people jump to when encountering results such as these.

[1] I notice you didn’t answer the question: Is everyone considered equal in their ability to definitively adjudicate the veracity of the human condition?

[2] Which ‘real conscious person’ are you talking about? The fact that you think it doesn’t matter is significant.

[3] Is human behavior rational? Yes…or no?

As for how I might determine the authenticity of the ‘thing’…I would simply ask it (are you a real human being?). Real human beings have this thing that they don’t like to lie.

Oh, is that how we are going to play? You are going to hold my feet to the fire if I don't specifically answer your questions? I thought they were rhetorical, but I'll play along.

[1] No. I guess you are sure you'd be a better judge than those in the contest.

[2] I've never seen the thought experiment question the humanity of the human control alternative. For the sake of argument, let's specify a person to compare with the zombie who is unimpeachably warm, heartful, and human acting, as judged by you.

[3] Human behavior is usually not rational. It should not be that hard to make artificially intelligent computers behave irrationally.

I really don't think the computer controlled enemies in the contest were conscious. I thought it was interesting that artificial intelligence is at a level where humans can no longer tell if they are conscious or not. Not interesting to you, though, because you don't like the implication, so you diss the judges (e.g. my team lost, so the game must have been badly officiated).

 

[quarky]

Hi.

Me again.
I know I keep implying that I'm pretty much done here, but I wanted to pose a question about consciousness, and what defines it, coming from the reverse side:

What does "unconscious" mean?

Are we unconscious when we're dreaming?
Or do we need to be in a coma to qualify?

Or do we need to be dead? Stiffs. Cadavers. Corpses...that sort of thing, before we can fully qualify for unconsciousness?

Assuming Pixy (and others) are correct, as per what defines consciousness, I've become curious as to precisely where that line is drawn. Thermostats, maybe. Fancy computers, definitely; my cordless DeWalt drill? Probably not.

Yet, it communicates to me, via its battery charge crashing. It literally forces me to go and get the other battery; the hot one. My car makes me drive out of my way to procure fuel, ostensibly because of its own conscious desire to remain alive, in car talk.

What if illegal drug molecules are actually memes, consciously using humans for their own purpose to 'procreate', so to speak.

I've got more questions than answers, by a lot.

 

[Dancing David]

Hi.

Me again.
I know I keep implying that I'm pretty much done here, but I wanted to pose a question about consciousness, and what defines it, coming from the reverse side:

What does "unconscious" mean?

Are we unconscious when we're dreaming?
Or do we need to be in a coma to qualify?

Or do we need to be dead? Stiffs. Cadavers. Corpses...that sort of thing, before we can fully qualify for unconsciousness?

Well, being someone who uses the medical definition of consciousness, it does raise some interesting points.

An unconscious person is one is his unresponsive to stimuli and can not be roused.

However the twilight state of sedation is a great example of a person who meets teh definition of 'conscious' as in the respond to stimuli but are not actually conscious, nor was I when I was having night terrors.

 

[quarky]

Raising 'interesting points' is what god is forcing me to do, against my will.

Why me, O lord?

I've been riding the atheism groove full circle.

Small wonder the son o' god was crucified.
I suspect the anti-son of god would also be crucified, except possibly upside down.
Or worse, death through extreme abundance and pleasure.

We are some kinky sons o' beeatches.

Or is it just me?

 

[calebprime]

Raising 'interesting points' is what god is forcing me to do, against my will.

Why me, O lord?

I've been riding the atheism groove full circle.

Small wonder the son o' god was crucified.
I suspect the anti-son of god would also be crucified, except possibly upside down.
Or worse, death through extreme abundance and pleasure.
We are some kinky sons o' beeatches.

Or is it just me?

Maybe the anti-son would have himself killed by a psychopath who forces him to eat 'til he explodes, sort of like in Seven.

My thought for the day.

 

[quarky]

Maybe the anti-son would have himself killed by a psychopath who forces him to eat 'til he explodes, sort of like in Seven.

My thought for the day.

Shouldn't you be working on your music?

 

[Mr. Scott]

Hi.

Me again.
I know I keep implying that I'm pretty much done here, but I wanted to pose a question about consciousness, and what defines it, coming from the reverse side:

[1] What does "unconscious" mean?

[2] Are we unconscious when we're dreaming?
[3] Or do we need to be in a coma to qualify?

[4] Or do we need to be dead? Stiffs. Cadavers. Corpses...that sort of thing, before we can fully qualify for unconsciousness?

Assuming Pixy (and others) are correct, as per what defines consciousness, I've become curious as to precisely where that line is drawn. Thermostats, maybe. Fancy computers, definitely; my cordless DeWalt drill? Probably not.

Yet, it communicates to me, via its battery charge crashing. It literally forces me to go and get the other battery; the hot one. My car makes me drive out of my way to procure fuel, ostensibly because of its own conscious desire to remain alive, in car talk.

What if illegal drug molecules are actually memes, consciously using humans for their own purpose to 'procreate', so to speak.

I've got more questions than answers, by a lot.

[1] It's good to agree on exactly how we are using a word before we get mired in semantics. The OP should be what defines it for this thread. "Unconscious" here would not mean knocked out for surgery. It would mean, for example, a common chess playing computer which uses algorithms to compute chess moves but could never wonder why it would want to win, or a person sleep-walking, or a tiny bug many argue behaves like machine/zombie but still has enough smarts to navigate it's little world and reproduce like its ancestors.

[2] Sometimes awake consciousness seems to arise when we dream, sometimes it doesn't. If we remember thinking about the dream while it was happening, we probably were conscious. If we only have memory of the dream, I suppose the memory could have been implanted by the dream without consciousness intruding. If, during hypnosis, you are implanted with a false memory of an event, were you conscious during the implanted event?

[3] Yea, I'd agree a coma is perfectly correlated with unconsciousness.

Oh, I see in another posting you bring up God and Jesus. Do you believe you are conscious in a near-death experience while looking down at yourself and the doctors working to save your life?

 

[dlorde]

What concerns me are the idiotic conclusions that so many people jump to when encountering results such as these.
...
Is everyone considered equal in their ability to definitively adjudicate the veracity of the human condition?

The gaming Turing Test simply gets people who are experienced at playing with and against other human gamers to judge how human-like they think the bot gameplay is. The best bots are trained on examples of human gameplay, so it's not surprising they do well on the test. It's no big deal really, but it does mean that game play can be made more engaging and it gives pointers towards better robot interface behaviour.

What idiotic conclusions about this do you find many people have jumped to?

 

[quarky]

One last pitch for a bizarre hypothesis:

If there is a point wherein we make contact with underlying reality, and basically get a wish, as per a minute and obscure ability to influence its path, as though its actually the tinniest choices that radiate outward into our bifurcations, or perceptions.

The pre-bang thingy manages to create the laws through its ability to off-set is horrible mass and potential energy; extreme motion; assembling our perceptions as per our wishes. The real ones. The subtle mental ones.

In this way, the quirky quark will prove its non existence, if that's your wish.
My vague and pathetic attempts to illuminate its possibility always get us both real excited. Even if, ultimately, we're the same.

This smacks of some Buddism, I'm sure.

There's no way I could ever offer proof, much less evidence, even though that too, plays into the hypothesis. Is it too late to move this thread into R&P?
I'd feel ok about further speculation there, but a new thread would die immediately.

 

[Zeuzzz]

FWIW: "Artificially Intelligent Game Bots Pass the Turing Test On Turing's Centenary"

Will it laugh when I fart though?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Thats the next level of turing test that I have not seen named or reproduced by any AI, the type of right brain creative/reactionary based emotions and feelings we all have alongside our programmed left brain memory and intelligence. What gives us our a sense of humour, etc.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Will it laugh when I fart though?

Laughing when someone farts? That's a sure sign of intelligence.

Nature programmed us to laugh, starting with rodents. We can program computers to laugh if we like.

“It has long been clear that deep subcortical brain regions are evolutionarily related (homologous) in all mammals, and since rat-laughter is strictly a lower brain process (as in humans), this indicates that we share a form of social-joy with other animals,” [Panksepp]