• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

On Consciousness

Is consciousness physical or metaphysical?

  • Consciousness is a kind of data processing and the brain is a machine that can be replicated in othe

    Votes: 81 86.2%

  • Consciousness requires a second substance outside the physical material world, currently undetectabl

    Votes: 3 3.2%

  • On Planet X, unconscious biological beings have perfected conscious machines

    Votes: 10 10.6%
  • Total voters
    94
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm a lot less certain than I make out in this thread, but it's no fun to just agree with the consensus opinion here else this thread would have hit a dead end.

Still an amusing thread for the amount of teeth people bring to the subject and thread.

Computation ... is for computers and logical brains.

Art music and creativity (humanities) is for humans.

We are logical humans surrounded by seemingly illogical people.
 
Mr. Scott said:
Yes, it will be quite unnecessary. ;)

Are you ready to fully articulate your case and add something positive to the conversation?
Click to expand...

If by that you mean "Am I ready to concede the point that machines are conscious" probably not.
Other points of view, if anything, add to the dialog.

I think consciousness is a bit more mysterious than what has been alluded to here...though it is my subjective explorations that have formed my opinions.

Central to this opinion is my hypothesis that the pre-big-bang singularity still exists, and what we perceive is one of an infinite number of probabilities of its motion. This is something that can't be proven, of course. Further, one of the probabilities is the perception that this is not true.

Were I too expound on this odd hypothesis, I would be met with derision and some hostility. Instead, I've tossed in some fluffy stuff for levity.

I see the singularity as a meta-particle, not bound by the normal rules of physics, especially "C". Yet, its extreme motion provides our perception of this universe, which is bound by these laws.

This 'quark' is able to assemble itself into endless configurations of matter, via altering its spin and becoming all the other sub-atomic building blocks of what we perceive as reality.

Bizarre as this may sound, is it more bizarre than the central premise of our belief in an unexplainable explosion that somehow gave birth to the universe, including consciousness? We tend to skip past that unpleasant or untidy beginning of everything. How could this tiny particle appear to be everywhere at once?
Through extreme violation of "C". It may be sequential motion, but at a rate that we can't fathom. We have a connection to it, because we are assembled from it. We are an expression of one of its endless potentialities.

Further, I suggest that there is nothing but consciousness. Why stop at a thermostat? Why can't an atom be conscious?
Clearly, a brain isn't required if a brainless machine can be conscious.
I'm just taking it to the next level.

How can you show me that an atom isn't a machine?
That it cannot have consciousness, yet a thermostat can?
 
Zeuzzz said:
Consciousness of the gaps in consciousness?

Isn't that just slowly becoming aware of consciousness?
Click to expand...

Modified, probably, is referring to 'The God of the Gaps' -- religious explanations for ever-smaller areas of human ignorance.

Many aspects of "creativity" or things that seem like they require human intelligence are like those gaps for which there could only be a god-explanation.

I personally think the body, the flesh, are way more important to what we ordinarily mean when we talk about creativity than some techies like to admit -- because they want to transcend the limitations of the flesh. (Kurzweil, etc.)

No icky flesh, no point in being creative. No desire. No point to anything, really.
 
Dani said:
That's an interesting thought. I'll keep it!
Click to expand...

A thought more about my own waning libido, etc. than anything that would stand up to Pixy Misa-ish scrutiny.

I find my own motivation or lack of it perplexing, often.
 
calebprime said:
Modified, probably, is referring to 'The God of the Gaps' -- religious explanations for ever-smaller areas of human ignorance.

Many aspects of "creativity" or things that seem like they require human intelligence are like those gaps for which there could only be a god-explanation.

I personally think the body, the flesh, are way more important to what we ordinarily mean when we talk about creativity than some techies like to admit -- because they want to transcend the limitations of the flesh. (Kurzweil, etc.)

No icky flesh, no point in being creative. No desire. No point to anything, really.
Click to expand...

deleted
 
The maths problem transcends science.

The best way to point this out is cryptology and any type of centralized mathematical architecture.

We can see anywhere, even when people have the best of intentions, it doesn't matter, it attracts dickheads. And those dickheads do things with those systems that the original designers would not do. It's true for the internet (lawful internet systems), it's true for all communications. And I mean all physical communications based on data of some sort.

No matter where we look we can see, especially with financial systems, that people corrupt it over time.

It's probably worth noting that any over-arching authority is generally grounded in violence somewhere along the line, if it is big enough. And in cryptography no amount of violence can solve a maths problem. It doesn't matter how much power they have, how fast their super-computers are, how much they try to torture you (well, you might spill the beans, but that's your choice) they can not find that number out and crack the code.

The only way round this is to each create your own mathematics, each a unique code. Which is essentially what cryptology does.

Sounds nonsense and completely unscientific? Yes. It's not scientific. Sorry for posting this in this section, in advance.

It's anti linear science and pro mathematical freedom and creativity. This is why you get so many 'crackpots' (hate that word) in physics, where as not so many in chemistry or biology, which are more mathematically and creatively free.

What they are essentially arguing is that they don't like the laws dictated to them, without realizing if you try to use science and evidence to disprove something based on science and hard evidence it simply wont work. You can fiddle the maths all you want, it doesn't change physical evidence.

Paul Erdos knew this, and never did a science experiment in his life, he lived in a world of abstract mathematics and was the most prolific mathematician (arguably) ever to walk the earth. Fascinating character. He called the authorities at the time the significant few, and did lots of work on random graphs. He was doing chaos theory arguably years before it was even named that and brought into the public domain.

I don't want to turn this into a moral stand in the science section so I will stop this angle, but it seems odd not to mention the linearization of thought in a thread about consciousness.

That's not to say science is useless of inherently pointless, it proves the power of what can be done with linear mathematics, just put it in perspective of dealing only with the physical world.

Maths comes from the same place ideas / new thoughts etc, come from. It's just a universal language (maybe species bound, maybe not, hard to tell, can't test scientifically!) that science is grounded in.

How would you communicate with an Alien?

Maths.

What transcends language and science?

Maths.

What is the universe made of then?

Turtles. All the way down.

"The internet, The LSD of today" - Timothy Leary

54533038926702781338610.jpg
 
Quantum physics is still uber cool and the best bit of physics. Still loads to test.
 
calebprime said:
Modified, probably, is referring to 'The God of the Gaps' -- religious explanations for ever-smaller areas of human ignorance.

Many aspects of "creativity" or things that seem like they require human intelligence are like those gaps for which there could only be a god-explanation.

I personally think the body, the flesh, are way more important to what we ordinarily mean when we talk about creativity than some techies like to admit -- because they want to transcend the limitations of the flesh. (Kurzweil, etc.)

No icky flesh, no point in being creative. No desire. No point to anything, really.
Click to expand...

Exactly right.
Computationalists accuse those that don't buy their thesis as religious, when in fact it's them that are.
The truly religious do not go about saying there are gaps in our knowledge, but that there are none.
That is a requirement of "transcending the flesh".
Take RD's discussion around teleportation, or replacing his neurons one by one with a switch.
100% certainty is required no icky doubts.
 
!Kaggen said:
Exactly right.
Computationalists accuse those that don't buy their thesis as religious
Click to expand...
Evidence?

when in fact it's them that are.
Click to expand...
Evidence?

The truly religious do not go about saying there are gaps in our knowledge, but that there are none.
Click to expand...
Well, that goes directly against your claim then.

Take RD's discussion around teleportation, or replacing his neurons one by one with a switch.
100% certainty is required no icky doubts.
Click to expand...
No. Just sound reasoning.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
Stop being so good at it, then.


Actually, this feel we can explain. Certain dopaminergic (DA) neurons in your basal ganglia code for reward. When the reward is unexpected, they fire at the time of reward, in conjunction with the silencing of cholinergic (Ach) neurons, which seem to be novelty detectors. When the reward is expected, not only are the Ach neurons unaffected (since it isn't novel any more), but the DA firing happens earlier, coincident with the moment that the decision is reached rather than the reward itself.

The obvious hypothesis, in layman's terms, is that it's the feeling you get when a problem is solved and the path is clear.

It might also help explain why applying certain dopamine agonists sometimes makes you, like, feel you understand the world, man. Like the whole world.
Click to expand...

I didn't know that! That's very cool. Thanks for the education!
 
PixyMisa said:
Unmitigated drivel.
Click to expand...


I know. Was fun writing it.

Still, it makes perfect sense. To me.

Did you enjoy reading it?

Pick out any point of contention at your will.

I think a scientific discussion about consciousness is always going to tie itself up in knots, since no scientists actually claim have achieved it what chance to we have on a forum.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom