Are You Conscious?

[westprog]

Yes.

I want to add a caveat however since though since i made the mistake of setting myself up as a neuroscience expert that I don't speak for the neuroscience community on this. I'm not sure most of my colleagues would agree with me (though I think they would) and I know several with far more impressive resumes than I who would say I'm full of crap.

However, I don't think that it matters in relation to this subject. Nobody is an expert on neuroscience and psychology and computer science and physics and philosophy. It's an area where we can all play, absent obvious factual errors.

Indeed, the misconceptions on the subject seem to arise from too profound an immersion in a single speciality.

 

[westprog]

ETA- I would be about 33 when I read GEB- and while I recognised it as an exceptional book, it didn't have the Damascene effect that "The Selfish Gene" did, about 12 years earlier. Too old maybe. Or too dim.

Beware that Damascene effect. "OMG, suddenly everything makes sense" is all to close to chugging the Koolaid.

 

[FedUpWithFaith]

You don't understand, FUWF. PixyMisa has put you on IGNORE, which means you are now excommunicated from reality. Oh, the horror!!!

Yes, I've lost much sleep over this.

 

[AlBell]

I think that what is considered part of the Strong AI cult in this particular discussion group is not necessarily what supporters of Strong AI in the outside world believe. You can explore in detail with Pixy and Rocketdodger precisely what they believe to be true, but basically they are asserting that the problem of consciousness has been entirely solved, that it is a matter of algorithmic processing, and that there is simply no legitimate doubt on the matter. You'll also find that they regard disagreement as indicative of ignorance and mysticism. They don't view this sequence of arguments as a discussion between equals in any sense - rather, it's an opportunity for them to lecture the rest of us. Pointing out supposed flaws in their arguments is not just foolish and wrong, it's deeply ungrateful, when they are giving of their time to enlighten us.

Perhaps the disconnect begins at the definition of life.

Is a robot paramecium alive, if built to the smallest size existing technology allows using non-biological material only? Will Pixy & RD answer yes? If not, I'd say they also admit the disconnect.

The big question is - when a computer shows the appearance of intelligence, does that imply that it has a conscious experience?

Which is the point an answer to the question above gets somewhat interesting. It is certainly aware of inputs and capable of computations based on them. The leap to conscious? Who will *ever* know?

There is also the possibility that what goes on in the brain is not expressible in computing terms, any more than what goes on in a car engine is expressible in computing terms - and that a computer simulation of what happens in the brain does not duplicate all the functionality any more than a simulation of a car engine allows us to drive to the shops.

Emulation of all brain functions should at least in principle be possible; identifying what is needed to be emulated seems incomplete.

What one has accomplished in the fullest possible emulation (in a non biological substrate) still hasn't answered the question; Is It Life?

That's my POV, which is compatible with your own in the sense that we are both claiming ignorance, not only on our own behalf but on everyone else's as well.

Yup.

 

[rocketdodger]

I think that what is considered part of the Strong AI cult in this particular discussion group is not necessarily what supporters of Strong AI in the outside world believe. You can explore in detail with Pixy and Rocketdodger precisely what they believe to be true, but basically they are asserting that the problem of consciousness has been entirely solved,

Erm, not quite. We are asserting that everything yet to be discovered about consciousness is going to be based on what is already discovered about information processing.

That is, there is obviously much to be uncovered about why human consciousness is what it is, and seems what it seems like. But at a fundamental level it will be ... a very complex form of self referential information processing. It isn't going to require some undiscovered fifth force of physics or some undetectable god-essence or whatever people think.

that it is a matter of algorithmic processing,

Yes. But we don't think "any old algorithm will do it." We have been clear that is must be self-referential, and furthermore we all disagree on the details and terms. In fact the only reason it seems like "we" are all together, in some sort of gang, is because the rest of you just literally have no clue about this issue.

and that there is simply no legitimate doubt on the matter.

Yeah, but you have to qualify that.

There is much doubt about the specfics of human consciousness. How could there not be, given the number of neurons and synapses that would need to be mapped and understood to get the full picture?

There is, however, no legitimate doubt that our consciousness arises entirely from our neurons, that single neurons are not conscious, and that random neuron communication does not give rise to consciousness. Logically, that means that Aku is wrong about his consciousness field (neurons don't create any such thing), you are wrong about your "physical" theories (single neurons are not conscious), and the computational model supporters are right (random activity doesn't give rise to consciousness).

You'll also find that they regard disagreement as indicative of ignorance and mysticism.

Yeah but it isn't so much the disagreement that we find to be indicative of ignorance and mysticism, it is the ignorant disagreement based on mysticism that we find to be indicative of ignorance and mysticism.

For example, your ignorant disagreement based on mysticism over nearly every example of machine intelligence we have cited ("no, machines cannot do that" when there is an existing example of machines that do, and then "well, it isn't really that" when we prove it to you) is indicative of your ignorance of the state of the field of computer science and artificial intelligence and your mysticism that machines a-priori simply cannot be conscious.

They don't view this sequence of arguments as a discussion between equals in any sense - rather, it's an opportunity for them to lecture the rest of us.

Trust me, we long for actual discussion. It has only turned out to be a lecture because your side just doesn't seem to know what they are talking about.

Pointing out supposed flaws in their arguments is not just foolish and wrong, it's deeply ungrateful, when they are giving of their time to enlighten us.

Well, we wish you would point out actual flaws -- then we might learn something, and although you apparently wouldn't understand the sentiment individuals like Pixy and myself enjoy learning about this issue.

What we find foolish and ungrateful is the "well, your argument is flawed because <nonsense that has nothing to do with either our argument or the issue at hand>" posts that only clutter the thread and ward of any visitors that might otherwise contribute in a positive way.

But, this is teh interwebs, so ...

 

[rocketdodger]

Perhaps the disconnect begins at the definition of life.

Is a robot paramecium alive, if built to the smallest size existing technology allows using non-biological material only? Will Pixy & RD answer yes? If not, I'd say they also admit the disconnect.

Not an issue. Directly from wikipedia:

Proposed
To reflect the minimum phenomena required, some have proposed other biological definitions of life:

Living things are systems that tend to respond to changes in their environment, and inside themselves, in such a way as to promote their own continuation.[17]
A network of inferior negative feedbacks (regulatory mechanisms) subordinated to a superior positive feedback (potential of expansion, reproduction).[18]
A systemic definition of life is that living things are self-organizing and autopoietic (self-producing). Variations of this definition include Stuart Kauffman's definition as an autonomous agent or a multi-agent system capable of reproducing itself or themselves, and of completing at least one thermodynamic work cycle.[19]
Life is a self-sustained chemical system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution.[20

 

[AlBell]

Perhaps the disconnect begins at the definition of life.

Is a robot paramecium alive, if built to the smallest size existing technology allows using non-biological material only? Will Pixy & RD answer yes? If not, I'd say they also admit the disconnect.

Not an issue.

I see. Is your answer an unqualified "yes"?

Directly from wikipedia:

Proposed
To reflect the minimum phenomena required, some have proposed other biological definitions of life:

Living things are systems that tend to respond to changes in their environment, and inside themselves, in such a way as to promote their own continuation.[17]
A network of inferior negative feedbacks (regulatory mechanisms) subordinated to a superior positive feedback (potential of expansion, reproduction).[18]
A systemic definition of life is that living things are self-organizing and autopoietic (self-producing). Variations of this definition include Stuart Kauffman's definition as an autonomous agent or a multi-agent system capable of reproducing itself or themselves, and of completing at least one thermodynamic work cycle.[19]
Life is a self-sustained chemical system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution.[20

I agree that defining "life" is as difficult as defining "consciousness". I don't agree Wiki is valid source for an answer; [20] may be correct.

Do you then foresee non-biological self-sustaining chemical systems ever reaching the point they are alive? We approach the gray goo scenario.

 

[westprog]

But at a fundamental level it will be ... a very complex form of self referential information processing. It isn't going to require some undiscovered fifth force of physics or some undetectable god-essence or whatever people think.

And that's where it stands - SRIP is the only non-magical explanation possible - and anything else is mysticism and nonsense.

To express my viewpoint - SRIP includes at least four physically undefined quantities, which leads me to be extremely sceptical that it can be the explanation, as it's been given so far.

 

[rocketdodger]

And that's where it stands - SRIP is the only non-magical explanation possible - and anything else is mysticism and nonsense.

You think this sounds absurd, but actually you are the only one that thinks so. The consensus of every single individual well educated in any relevant field that has contributed to these threads is that consciousness, at the very least, is a type of SRIP. It might be more, but it is this at least.

So any suggestion that it might not be a type of SRIP really is mysticisim and nonsense.

To express my viewpoint - SRIP includes at least four physically undefined quantities, which leads me to be extremely sceptical that it can be the explanation, as it's been given so far.

That statement includes at least ten "physically undefined quantities." I guess that means it is meaningless as well?

 

[rocketdodger]

I see. Is your answer an unqualified "yes"?

Well that depends on the robot, right? So it isn't "unqualified."

But if it did most of the stuff a normal paramecium does than I would say yes. The fact that the chemical composition is different doesn't matter to me.

Do you then foresee non-biological self-sustaining chemical systems ever reaching the point they are alive? We approach the gray goo scenario.

Yeah, but it doesn't need to be gray goo. It could be a skynet or matrix scenario as well, although without a component as adaptable as the human body I dunno how long they would last.

The thing is, biological systems are just chemicals like everything else. In fact, I don't think nanotech will ever approach the economy of biotech, since at that scale any nanotech would converge with biotech anyway.

Furthermore, life as we know it is a form of software/hardware just like the computers we build. I was lucky enough to have been a nearly graduated molecular biology major before video games and computer science corrupted me, so I know all about cellular control pathways and how life actually works. It seems vastly different from human engineering at first, but once you get into it, everything makes sense and you see that it isn't that different after all. Engineering is engineering, after everything is said and done, and evolution is merely an engineer.

When you really understand how DNA works, and at how proteins function, and how cellular processes are controlled, and how cells communicate, then you start to say to yourself "man, these guys really are nothing but tiny machines."

 

[FedUpWithFaith]

FedUpWithFaith, three quick questions for you:

What do qualia do?
Precisely what behaviour is it that we ascribe to consciousness that SHRDLU does not exhibit?
Precisely what behaviour is it that you consider (definitively) necessary for consciousness beyond self-referential information processing?

Clearly the answers to 2 and 3 might be the same, and both might be connected to the answer to 1, but to have any meaningful discussion you need to answer these, as clearly and precisely as you can, rather than just misconstruing my opinions and arguing against positions I do not hold.

Your argument at the moment appears to boil down to an assertion that while I may be right, I'm definitely wrong, and therefore an idiot. Could you please try for a little more clarity and civility both. I'll be back tomorrow.

Pixi,

I'm probably going to regret this but I'll try one last time to answer your question, if not for you then for those who've PMed me to say how much they enjoy watching this trainwreck. I have been snide and short and rude to you but don't take it personally. It wasn't really intended to hurt you but to amuse myself and add some some provocative passion to the dialogue. And you have been very civil in response which is one of the reasons I'm replying for you potential benefit.

The crux of the problem in my view Pixi isn't essentially our differences on consciousness. In fact, if we really sorted through the definitional problems I think we'd be in over 90% agreement. What has frustrated me about you is not your conclusions but how you got to them and how you argue. You confuse the nature and utility of facts, opinion, hypotheses, proofs, descriptions, theorems in illogical and unsupportable ways and appear to be incapable of recognizing this.

Anyway, here are my answers to your questions:

1. What do qualia do?

Honest answer: I'm not sure. What does a rock do? What does my subjective mental perception of blue do? If you've read all my posts they may just "be". I could give you arguments to tell you about all sorts of things I think they plausibly are including:

- the intrinsic mental perception associated with and/or produced by strange loops
- self-referential result or residual of data compression
- a self-reflected process state that is not a process itself
- less likely: and epiphenomenal illusion of awareness of processes that are completely unconscious
- some combination of the above

What all of these hypotheses (we obviously don't know enough to call them definitions of qualia yet) share is they all attempt to explain a purely subjective observable called "qualia" which is merely our subjective sense of conscious experience. I agree with Dennett in that qualia are:

" 1. ineffable; that is, they cannot be communicated, or apprehended by any other means than direct experience.
2. intrinsic; that is, they are non-relational properties, which do not change depending on the experience's relation to other things.
3. private; that is, all interpersonal comparisons of qualia are systematically impossible.
4. directly or immediately apprehensible in consciousness; that is, to experience a quale is to know one experiences a quale, and to know all there is to know about that quale."

If you have qualia, then you should know what it means.

I also believe, by their nature, qualia contain no transmittable information either internally in further neural feedback or externally to the outside world.

You don't even believe qualia exist or can be defined. I know what I see, in my mind's eye (we agree on the veil of perception don't we?) when I see something blue but that experience, unlike all other forms of observation, is by its nature ineffable. What I experience is the qualia of blue. If you read and understood Wittgenstein maybe you would better appreciate the deep aspects of this.

2. Precisely what behaviour is it that we ascribe to consciousness that SHRDLU does not exhibit?

I'm not going to answer this now since we can't get past #1 and because you insist self-referential processing is self-awareness. I would say certain forms of self-referential processing yield self-awareness. The mind is an abstraction layer - in that sense it isn't "real" in a tangible way.

The best analogy I can give you to try to help you see why you're wrong is the very nature of abstraction itself manifested in symbolism and language which is the ultimate limitation to philosophical discussions like this. I think Wittgenstein might help you with this too.

I ask you to consider the following statement:

1 + 1 = 2

1 = what?
2 = what?
1+ 1 = what?

What is the essence of these numbers? They aren't a thing like a TV screen and they aren't a process like computation. They are mere abstraction (with symbols). Your arguments sometimes equate what are really abstractions to physical things or processes. A mental process can produce abstractions but abstractions don't create mental processes (though they can be used to represent them!) Ultimately, I believe qualia are like illusions in the sense that they are mentally generated abstractions (via data compression) that feel subjectively tangible.

3. Precisely what behaviour is it that you consider (definitively) necessary for consciousness beyond self-referential information processing?

self-awareness (observable) - which I believe can be abstracted to mental tangibility via strange loops (explanation)

Unfortunately, the observable of self-awareness is subjective. So I could only prove my own consciousness. I could infer yours assuming your brain operates sufficiently like mine and you told me you were aware of yourself.

Otherwise, we need to wait for science to discover the fundamentals and processes of our specific neural strange loops and the general abstract hierarchies and feedback that govern them so that we can potentially recognize them in the same or isomorphic forms in other animals, alien beings or AI machines. As we do this, in fact in order to do this, hopefully we will be able to use brain scanning techniques to dissect the operation of these strange loops and correlate them in and between subjects to various forms of qualia and thought. Based on such self-reporting combined with correlated and completely understood strange loop architectures I think we'll then have a sound basis to determine if something is really conscious. However, even this will not meet the standards of proof that someone like UE can argue is required.

 

[Maia]

I can't believe just how many "consciousness" threads there really are around here, nor just how long they've been going on...

Rocketdodger, I'm starting to think that I could completely agree with you, and yet not perhaps in the way that you might think. Are you familar with the concept of NOMA? That's how I could see it happening. I would truly, truly love to start a thread on the subject here. It would be the Happy Intermural NOMA Discussion Thread, with amity and mutual accord and warm banana bread for all!

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I can't believe just how many "consciousness" threads there really are around here, nor just how long they've been going on...

They've been going on for the last ten years. This subject has dominated this part of this board since the very first day it was here.

Rocketdodger, I'm starting to think that I could completely agree with you, and yet not perhaps in the way that you might think. Are you familar with the concept of NOMA? That's how I could see it happening. I would truly, truly love to start a thread on the subject here.

I am currently writing a book about it. I had already got half way through it and given up, but fedupwithfaith has convinced me to have another go.

Yes, I think NOMA is possible, but Stephen Jay Gould's version doesn't work.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The folks who want an immaterial soul, or libertarian free will, or whatever, are never going to reach any sort of agreement with the folks who don't need those things. That is because by the very nature of those immaterial things, they are inaccessible to science. To be accessible, there has to be a mechanism, and the idea of a mechanism is anathema to the immaterialist. There shall be no mechanism.

NOMA: Nonoverlapping mechanism antithesis

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

The folks who want an immaterial soul, or libertarian free will, or whatever, are never going to reach any sort of agreement with the folks who don't need those things.

Not quite. Those who need those things will never reach agreement with those who need them not to exist. Since there is no way of supporting the claim that they necessarily don't exist, I see no reason why conflict is inevitable. The materialists/determinists need to accept that they can't ever force the believers to abandon their belief. None of it makes any difference to science, which has no meaning for those terms anyway.

 

[FedUpWithFaith]

I am currently writing a book about it. I had already got half way through it and given up, but fedupwithfaith has convinced me to have another go.

Yes, I think NOMA is possible, but Stephen Jay Gould's version doesn't work.

Hehe.. you thought I was serious in those PMs?!

Just kidding. I need you to write that book because I know you'll invest your entire heart, soul and ego into it. Then, just as the success of its publication looks secure, I plan to lead a group to eviscerate your book point by point in pre-publication blitz reviews with a concomittant smear campaign that will make you look like the second-coming of Hitler. I will wring my hands with an evil grin as I watch you sink into deep demoralized depression leading ultimately to .... self-mutilation. I have to be careful not to use the s-word anymore lest I get suspended.

Given what happened in the Dr. A banning thread i guess I better explicitly mention that the last paragraph was completely in jest and I am not advocating violence of any kind, especially self-mutilation - not even tatooing.

 

[westprog]

You think this sounds absurd, but actually you are the only one that thinks so. The consensus of every single individual well educated in any relevant field that has contributed to these threads is that consciousness, at the very least, is a type of SRIP. It might be more, but it is this at least.

This is why debating with Rocketdodger is such a wearing experience. Pixy at least keeps his replies monosyllabic, if uninformative.

How does RD identify the "well educated" people in their fields? It's fairly clear the standard that applies. At least it wasn't RD who denied that Roger Penrose was a physicist, though heresy in this area is enough to warrant excommunication.

So any suggestion that it might not be a type of SRIP really is mysticisim and nonsense.



That statement includes at least ten "physically undefined quantities." I guess that means it is meaningless as well?

Oh, that old "turn the tables" tactic. How tiresome it becomes after a while. Well, it starts out tiresome, and gets very tiresome indeed.

Meanwhile, precise definitions of self, or self referential, or information*, or information processing, are not quite provided. They are alluded to - sometimes we are assured that they were provided earlier on, but ignored - but it's always jam tomorrow.

*I know Pixy gave a reference to the Wiki definition of physical information. Sadly that not only doesn't support the SRIP position, it pretty well destroys it. If information is everywhere, being passed from everything to everything, then the Westprog rock** makes more, not less sense.

**References to the Westprog rock on request.

 

[AkuManiMani]

I can't believe just how many "consciousness" threads there really are around here, nor just how long they've been going on...

Rocketdodger, I'm starting to think that I could completely agree with you, and yet not perhaps in the way that you might think. Are you familar with the concept of NOMA? That's how I could see it happening. I would truly, truly love to start a thread on the subject here. It would be the Happy Intermural NOMA Discussion Thread, with amity and mutual accord and warm banana bread for all!

I think NOMA is just another expression of the apparent divide between "ought" and "is". It would probably help to see them as two perpendicular axes of ascertaining the world; one deals in objective facts and the other deals with subjective valuation

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Not quite. Those who need those things will never reach agreement with those who need them not to exist. Since there is no way of supporting the claim that they necessarily don't exist, I see no reason why conflict is inevitable. The materialists/determinists need to accept that they can't ever force the believers to abandon their belief. None of it makes any difference to science, which has no meaning for those terms anyway.

Indeed, I think we agree. Science has no meaning for those terms because those terms require that there be no mechanism. The question then becomes: What does it mean for something without a mechanism to be a cause?

Someone on another forum started a thread about how science could better study the non-material. Unfortunately, no one can come up with anything science could do differently, because they do not want there to be a mechanism.

It's rather amusing, actually.

~~ Paul

 

[PixyMisa]

Awesumo! Good to know theres a qualified person in this discussion who isn't part of the strong AI cult. When I suggested to Pixy, et al., that the question of consciousness is more a matter of biophysics than computer science they acted as if I grew an extra head, or something

Are you talking about your magic fairy field theory of quantum consciousness? It was, and remains, complete nonsense on every level.