• 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.

Are You Conscious?

Are you concious?

  • Of course, what a stupid question

    Votes: 89 61.8%

  • Maybe

    Votes: 40 27.8%

  • No

    Votes: 15 10.4%
  • Total voters
    144
rocketdodger said:
What are you talking about?

I can take every event in your life that you have reacted to -- down to the particle interactions on your retinas -- and list them, in an ordered fashion, interleaved with the algorithm to operate on them, on the TM input tape. Then I can take all of the events that you will react to and list them as well.

I am not sure you think otherwise, but you can do whatever you want with the TM input tape.
Click to expand...

Except catch a ball.
 
I-wasp made this suggestion:
"If we can move past these trivial issues and get to the meat of the matter -- what is 'feeling', 'awareness', 'attention', 'meaning', then we can move forward. Otherwise, we can just keep going round the bend and argue the same points using different words over and over."

Just an interesting observation on where I-wasp is pointing (subjectivity)….don’t know if anyone else has noticed:

What is the only place in the scientific lexicon where the rather unscientific language of subjectivity occurs? Observations that depend on the frame of reference of the observer:

QED.

There is obviously no empirical connection between QED and human subjectivity….except for the simple fact that subjectivity is a profoundly unique phenomenon (and so is QED). Subjectivity really can be described as measurements that depend entirely upon the frame of reference of the observer. It is obviously in no way conclusive that consciousness has some QED component (this has been exhaustively and inconclusively debated on these threads)…..but the existence or the two singularly unique phenomenon in such proximity to each other can hardly be considered coincidental. In a rather eerie way, subjectivity implies some QED relationship….which has rather unpredictable implications.
 
annnnoid said:
I-wasp made this suggestion:
"If we can move past these trivial issues and get to the meat of the matter -- what is 'feeling', 'awareness', 'attention', 'meaning', then we can move forward. Otherwise, we can just keep going round the bend and argue the same points using different words over and over."

Just an interesting observation on where I-wasp is pointing (subjectivity)….don’t know if anyone else has noticed:

What is the only place in the scientific lexicon where the rather unscientific language of subjectivity occurs? Observations that depend on the frame of reference of the observer:

QED.

There is obviously no empirical connection between QED and human subjectivity….except for the simple fact that subjectivity is a profoundly unique phenomenon (and so is QED). Subjectivity really can be described as measurements that depend entirely upon the frame of reference of the observer. It is obviously in no way conclusive that consciousness has some QED component (this has been exhaustively and inconclusively debated on these threads)…..but the existence or the two singularly unique phenomenon in such proximity to each other can hardly be considered coincidental. In a rather eerie way, subjectivity implies some QED relationship….which has rather unpredictable implications.
Click to expand...

I don't think that the role of the observer in QED can really be said to depend on consciousness. Nothing in Quantum theory requires a conscious observer. All that is required is some kind of physical interaction.
 
That was not quite what I was getting at Westprog. It is sort of a conceptual thing…that may imply something more than a conceptual thing. That is the point. QED involves self-referential reality, irrespective of whether or not there exists any conscious observer (as you say…though how a conscious observer may influence the issue is another question). This thread is attempting to explore another self-referential, ie: subjective phenomenon: Human subjective experience. Where else in the entire universe does there exist a phenomenon like human subjective experience? Nowhere, as far as we know. What variety of coincidence could it be that the physical phenomenon of subjective experience exists contemporaneously, in some variety of relationship, with QED (because it does, quite obviously)….the only other physical phenomenon with similar characteristics.

Yes….I know it’s wildly speculative (especially given the current level of complexity involved in establishing any QED component to brain architecture, let alone consciousness)….but subjectivity IS a real phenomenon….and it is a singularly unique phenomenon. Looking for a conventional mechanism simply related to brain architecture just seems far too….prosaic.
 
westprog said:
If when you implement the Turing machine model, you find you need some other quantities not present in the model, you need a new model. So you define a model where time dependence is significant.

Choosing a better model is fairly normal practice in science, when one model doesn't represent what is going on.



I know that a TM can model time dependence - but it cannot be time dependent. That is why a TM can simulate what the brain does, but it cannot emulate what the brain does.
Click to expand...


Again, that doesn't matter. The Turing machine is not conscious. It is a model. If it can model time dependence, and we have already identified time dependence as important to the process, where is the problem of implementation of the model -- which contains time dependence as one of its important features (even though the Turing machine itself is not time dependent, which doesn't matter because it is a model and not the thing itself)?

No one is saying that a Turing machine, as an abstraction, is conscious. It is the implementation of the model in the real world that can be conscious. So, if that model contains time dependence as part of the model, where is the problem?
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
Again, that doesn't matter. The Turing machine is not conscious. It is a model. If it can model time dependence, and we have already identified time dependence as important to the process, where is the problem of implementation of the model -- which contains time dependence as one of its important features (even though the Turing machine itself is not time dependent, which doesn't matter because it is a model and not the thing itself)?

No one is saying that a Turing machine, as an abstraction, is conscious. It is the implementation of the model in the real world that can be conscious. So, if that model contains time dependence as part of the model, where is the problem?
Click to expand...

This is why I gave a potted history of computing - because this can get a bit confusing.

The claim is that an instantiation of a Turing machine can experience consciousness - and that no additional features are required beyond what is defined in the Turing model. So what the Turing model does when instantiated is the issue.

So does a Turing machine, when instantiated, have time dependence? Well, yes and no. It has to have some kind of way of controlling its operations - but this time dependency has no relationship with the outside world. That's why machines built according to this model (that's hardware and software), cannot be used for control or monitoring purposes.

Similar machines which were designed to a different model were able to be used for control and monitoring purposes. It's important to realise that a different design principle was involved.

Machines built according to the Turing machine principle could model real time activities. However, they could not, in theory or in fact, except by happy accident, perform any kind of control or monitoring functions. The two classes of machine were quite distinct.
 
westprog said:
This is why I gave a potted history of computing - because this can get a bit confusing.

The claim is that an instantiation of a Turing machine can experience consciousness - and that no additional features are required beyond what is defined in the Turing model. So what the Turing model does when instantiated is the issue.

So does a Turing machine, when instantiated, have time dependence? Well, yes and no. It has to have some kind of way of controlling its operations - but this time dependency has no relationship with the outside world. That's why machines built according to this model (that's hardware and software), cannot be used for control or monitoring purposes.

Similar machines which were designed to a different model were able to be used for control and monitoring purposes. It's important to realise that a different design principle was involved.

Machines built according to the Turing machine principle could model real time activities. However, they could not, in theory or in fact, except by happy accident, perform any kind of control or monitoring functions. The two classes of machine were quite distinct.
Click to expand...


But none of that matters. The reason for bringing this up in the first place was to argue that if we could model this abstractly by using a Turing machine, then we should theoretically be able to recreate consciousness in another medium. That is all.

The Turing machine model obviously has to include all the salient features that are important to consciousness. If not, what is the point of the model? That a Turing machine works independent of time simply does not have anything to do with the model, the instantiation of the model, or anything else.

The history of computing tells us very little about what is important theoretically in this process. Or are you suggesting that it is impossible to include monitoring functions within a Turing machine model?
 
westprog said:
No, not like that at all.
Click to expand...

Oh, well, then you should explain what you are talking about, because nobody has a clue.

If I am on Earth, and you are on a starship traveling near lightspeed, and time dilation causes your timescale to slow relative to mine by a factor of 0.01, then every interval of one second that passes for you corresponds to an inverval of 100 seconds that pass for me.

Agree?

And if, 100 seconds after you leave, I say "now," the current "wall clock" time in my frame will be 99 seconds ahead of the "wall clock" time in your frame.

Agree?

Now, if you agree to all of the above, then what on Earth is your problem with "now?" My "now" is simply 99 seconds ahead of your "now." The values are different for each "now", but who cares? Did anyone ever say the values had to the same?

Now is now. Learn math and physics, westprog.
 
rocketdodger said:
Oh, well, then you should explain what you are talking about, because nobody has a clue.

If I am on Earth, and you are on a starship traveling near lightspeed, and time dilation causes your timescale to slow relative to mine by a factor of 0.01, then every interval of one second that passes for you corresponds to an inverval of 100 seconds that pass for me.

Agree?

And if, 100 seconds after you leave, I say "now," the current "wall clock" time in my frame will be 99 seconds ahead of the "wall clock" time in your frame.

Agree?

Now, if you agree to all of the above, then what on Earth is your problem with "now?" My "now" is simply 99 seconds ahead of your "now." The values are different for each "now", but who cares? Did anyone ever say the values had to the same?

Now is now. Learn math and physics, westprog.
Click to expand...

If you are on Earth, and I am on a planet a million light years away, then now for me is a million years in your past. And now for you is a million years in my past.
 
rocketdodger said:
Yeah well your brain can't catch a ball either, genius -- it is the body that does the catching.

So ... what was your point, again?
Click to expand...

Very few bodies without brains can manage to catch anything. It's the brain interacting with the body, in real time, that allows the system to catch the ball.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
The history of computing tells us very little about what is important theoretically in this process. Or are you suggesting that it is impossible to include monitoring functions within a Turing machine model?
Click to expand...

I'm saying that modelling monitoring functions is a necessary amendation to the Turing model.
 
westprog said:
I'm saying that modelling monitoring functions is a necessary amendation to the Turing model.
Click to expand...


An amendment to how they were used in the past or to how they can work?

Can a Turing machine model monitoring functions theoretically? If not, why not?
 
annnnoid said:
I-wasp made this suggestion:
"If we can move past these trivial issues and get to the meat of the matter -- what is 'feeling', 'awareness', 'attention', 'meaning', then we can move forward. Otherwise, we can just keep going round the bend and argue the same points using different words over and over."

Just an interesting observation on where I-wasp is pointing (subjectivity)….don’t know if anyone else has noticed:

What is the only place in the scientific lexicon where the rather unscientific language of subjectivity occurs? Observations that depend on the frame of reference of the observer:

QED.

There is obviously no empirical connection between QED and human subjectivity….except for the simple fact that subjectivity is a profoundly unique phenomenon (and so is QED). Subjectivity really can be described as measurements that depend entirely upon the frame of reference of the observer. It is obviously in no way conclusive that consciousness has some QED component (this has been exhaustively and inconclusively debated on these threads)…..but the existence or the two singularly unique phenomenon in such proximity to each other can hardly be considered coincidental. In a rather eerie way, subjectivity implies some QED relationship….which has rather unpredictable implications.
Click to expand...

:raises hand meekly:

Sensation, perception and verbal cognition, sir?

:lowers hand:
 
Dancing David said:
How does Steven Hawkings catch a ball?
Click to expand...
Yes, it's possible that damaged humans exist.

I wonder if westprog's basic thrust is to point out the problem with Pixy's formal definition of consciousness? Why isn't the instantiation of a Turing machine using pebbles in the sand conscious?
 
AlBell said:
Yes, it's possible that damaged humans exist.

I wonder if westprog's basic thrust is to point out the problem with Pixy's formal definition of consciousness? Why isn't the instantiation of a Turing machine using pebbles in the sand conscious?
Click to expand...


I don't know the example, so I'm making assumptions here, but rocks in the sand are not causal. Whatever solution we arrive at for consciousness, it must have causal properties -- neuron firings cause consciousness in their action.

Rocks in the sand can be seen as providing computation in an observer-dependent manner; in other words, we can define that sort of thing as computation. But that won't work for consciousness. The computations necessary for consciousness must occur through action, in an observer-independent fashion. That's what neurons do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom