Are You Conscious?

[Malerin]

I hate to sound like Dr. Phil but when you're the only common denominator in problem relationships it's time to take a good long look at yourself.

At the risk of sounding like an afterschool special, I think we learned who the real P-zombie is...PIXYMISA!

 

[Malerin]

As I said, and as I said to Westprog on a different matter, you don't actually believe the point you are arguing, because if you did, you would not be posting on this forum in the first place.

Why wouldn't I be posting here? Haven't you ever seen homeless people talk to themselves? They seem to be having fascinating conversations.

It's not as if it's even an interesting point.

Someone got a gun to your head forcing you to type?

 

[Soapy Sam]

I always dreamed of being a solipsist, but my fantasies keep making me get out of bed.
My imagination does a very convincing 54 year old bladder.

 

[PixyMisa]

Why wouldn't I be posting here? Haven't you ever seen homeless people talk to themselves? They seem to be having fascinating conversations.

Nor do you believe that you are insane, nor would you be posting here if you did.

Someone got a gun to your head forcing you to type?

As it happens, yes.

And I believe that just as much as you believe what you just wrote.

 

[Malerin]

I always dreamed of being a solipsist, but my fantasies keep making me get out of bed.
My imagination does a very convincing 54 year old bladder.

I'm not a solipsist. We all just happen to be in a very orderly, very convincing dream. But that's a topic for another thread.

 

[Malerin]

Nor do you believe that you are insane, nor would you be posting here if you did.


As it happens, yes.

And I believe that just as much as you believe what you just wrote.

Which is about as much as you believe in conscious washing machines

We all have our strange beliefs, don't we

 

[PixyMisa]

Which is about as much as you believe in conscious washing machines

Wrong as always, and proving my point about definitions.

By what precise definition are washing machines not conscious, Malerin?

Does that definition match mine?

If not, your agument is just another non-sequitur.

We all have our strange beliefs, don't we

There is nothing odd about my conclusions.

And you do not believe what you are saying; the existence of your posts refutes their content.

 

[FedUpWithFaith]

Pixi, we're still stuck on qualia

I'm going to reorder your points a bit to explain my position again:

How about this: Qualia are aspects of a self-referential information processing system as seen from the perspective of that system.

I like this Pixi. I really do. It's a good explanation of qualia consistent with my beliefs. But neither you or I or anybody else has proven it so so we are not entitled to define qualia this way yet.

Science doesn't work backwards like this. It begins with descriptive categorical classification of observables and and ends in theories always subject to potential revision. You didn't get my digestion analogy so I'll try a simpler one.

Qualia is like a baseball you found. Except pretend you've just arrived from growing up on another planet and you've never heard of baseball or human beings for that matter. How would you define the baseball?

You'd start with pure categorical observation and classification like all good scientists I hope. You could define the ball as round white sphere of a specific weight and size with red stitching of a particular pattern. That would be an accurate definition all by itself. Sure it's incomplete, but so are potentially all our physical theories. In science you can never prove you reached the end of explanation.

I could extend the definition by taking the ball apart, chemically analyzing it, etc. etc. etc. It's safe to say you could infer that it was manufactured by some form of intelligent being. How exactly was it manufactured? From what? Who manufacturerd it? Why? And your favorite question - what does it do? You have to explore beyond the baseball to answer those questions. And you have to answer those questions to have a more complete definition.

Once you've done everything to characterize the baseball you can using the baseball you have you'll have to guess basically what it's for and how it got made. You might run across humans playing with footballs and form a hypothesis that it could be from some sort of game played by humans. You're not going to be able to prove your claims until you see a game of baseball. And even that may not be enough, you might have to look further to see how baseballs can be souvenirs with signatures.

But it all starts with the categorical observable itself. I have repeatedly given you definitions of this observable and you dismiss them. So you tell me what the observable is rather than just your mechanism for its creation which you think you've proven.

Sifting through your responses:

What does my subjective mental perception of blue do?

That's a verb. That is what it does.

It's not a verb if it is a state of a process or an abstraction of a process (that can somehow be sensed). In any case, "my subjective mental perception of blue" is a quale. And this is what everybody here is beating their heads on the wall trying to get you to realize. It's that simple.

1. What do qualia do?

Honest answer: I'm not sure.

Then why do you think they exist?

What does a rock do?

Lots of things. Do you want a gross physical description, or a chemical analysis? Geological? What sort of rock exactly, and under what circumstances? Limestone in acid behaves differently to shale in oil, but both can be completely quantified.

This is exactly my point. We can define a rock completely by what it does. You don't seem to be able to say anything about what qualia do.

That's because we already know all this stuff about rocks. If we knew nothing about rocks but their observable description you have to answer "I don't know" to what they do and you certainly couldn't define them by your guesses of what they might be doing.

Unlike you, I'm not afraid to say "I don't know". I think you need to learn to use that simple phrase.

Furthermore, there's still a lot I'm sure we don't know about rocks, so even your extensive definition would be incomplete. You can't know the entire definition for what rocks do either. And finally, it helps if you specify (or discover) a context. Even the baseball definition has multiple contexts - as an element in a human game, as the product of a profitable manufacturing process, and as a souvenir paperweight, and many more...

What context for the purpose of qualia do you want me to speculate about? Because I'm never going to claim that I know what it is until I have sufficient evidence. Before I speculate about what qualia might do, let me explain why I really think it is a rational possibility that they do nothing - at least directly. In this regard, there really is the possibility in my mind that qualia are a unique type of phenomenon emergent from the special form of self-referential processing of strange loops consistent with your first "definition" you gave above that I quoted (really just a plausible explanation).

Actually, since you believe in digital physics like me I can give you a direct analogy. Everything in the universe that is energy or matter is produced by another form(s) of strange loop (for all I know it could be very similar or identical in form to the strange loop(s) that yields consciousness). An electron (or whatever fundamental particle or energy building block you care to pick) is then paradoxically the tangible objective observable physical thing or process state that results from an underlying self-referential computational process. Likewise, qualia are the tangible subjective observable mental/abstract thing or process state that results from an underlying self-referential computational process. The verb (do) might really become the noun (a thing). I realize this would normally be considered a philosophical reification error. But this is the one instance in reality where I think itmay be valid.

What qualia "do" in this sense is simply to render abstracted perception computation subjectively tangible to "you" where the "you" and the "qualia" are reflected upon each other to be virtually the same. It's a closed loop. All self-referential objects including electrons, photons, and qualia are closed inaccessible loops. If you could somehow break the loop to analyze the phenomena the phenomena would disappear.

Thus, if qualia are intrinsic and necessary for you to experience you and be aware of your identity obviously this opens all sorts of other things qualia do by extension, like enable us to seek food, sex, and protect ourselves.

How am I doing Pixi?

Oh, I forgot this:

"Subjectively tangible"? It seems like an oxymoron to me.

It isn't. Stuff in the external world is objectively tangible to each of us after the veil of perception through our senses. Since we can all sense these things it is rendered objectively verifiable through the common modes of language and description we can all share. Stuff in the internal world of our minds can only be subjectively sensed by the subject and as much as you appear to dislike the word, they are ineffable precisely because they are purely subjective. But they are nontheless tangible because the subject can "feel" them.

I'll have to address the rest of your post later. I'm pooped.

 

[rocketdodger]

How does RD identify the "well educated" people in their fields?

Well, for starters, if the field is computer science, a "well educated" individual doesn't make a statement of the form "computers can't do X" when a computer did X ten years ago.

Really, that is my only problem with you, because you don't make strong claims about any other field. If you are going to make strong claims about computer science then you should be current with the research.

And you are not.

 

[rocketdodger]

I just wanted to say that I don't consider the argument between Pixy and FUWF productive.

I know Pixy's position, and it is perfectly compatible with FUWF's position -- you two are just using different terms and creating an argument where none exists.

Just my two cents.

 

[PixyMisa]

Pixi, we're still stuck on qualia

I'm going to reorder your points a bit to explain my position again:



I like this Pixi. I really do. It's a good explanation of qualia consistent with my beliefs. But neither you or I or anybody else has proven it so so we are not entitled to define qualia this way yet.

Sorry, but this is incoherent.

You can't even define these things you postulate. When I offer a definition, based on a concrete process that we know is happening -not filling in all the details, but providing a conceptual basis - you tell me I'm not allowed to do that.

Sorry, no, you're fractally wrong. You can't assume into existence entities whose very properties you can't articulate. What I just defined clearly and necessarily exists, and you can attach the label qualia to that definition if you wish.

But if you can't provide a definition of your own, that isn't circular or based on yet more undefined terms, then the word has no meaning, and I'll ask you to stop using it.

Science doesn't work backwards like this. It begins with descriptive categorical classification of observables and and ends in theories always subject to potential revision.

Which is what I did and what you are quite unable to do. I didn't provide a theory, I provided a definition.

You didn't get my digestion analogy so I'll try a simpler one.

Qualia is like a baseball you found. Except pretend you've just arrived from growing up on another planet and you've never heard of baseball or human beings for that matter. How would you define the baseball?

Operationally, which is what I'm trying to get you to do. What does it do?

You'd start with pure categorical observation and classification like all good scientists I hope. You could define the ball as round white sphere of a specific weight and size with red stitching of a particular pattern. That would be an accurate definition all by itself. Sure it's incomplete, but so are potentially all our physical theories. In science you can never prove you reached the end of explanation.

No; nor did I suggest anything of the sort. What I'm still trying to get out of you is what do qualia do?

I could extend the definition by taking the ball apart, chemically analyzing it, etc. etc. etc. It's safe to say you could infer that it was manufactured by some form of intelligent being. How exactly was it manufactured? From what? Who manufacturerd it? Why? And your favorite question - what does it do? You have to explore beyond the baseball to answer those questions. And you have to answer those questions to have a more complete definition.

Yes. And I'm still waiting for you to begin doing this for qualia.

But it all starts with the categorical observable itself. I have repeatedly given you definitions of this observable and you dismiss them.

You have waved your hands a lot, yes. But you have offered nothing in the way of a coherent definition, which leaves us without any reason to supposed that qualia exist, or that the term has any meaning at all.

Everything about the baseball is defined by what it does - it interacts via the forces of gravity and electromagnetsim in these precise ways.

Nothing you've said about qualia even takes the approach of a functional or operational definition.

So you tell me what the observable is rather than just your mechanism for its creation which you think you've proven.

Again, you're assuming things I never said, and completely misunderstanding everything, and then asserting that I'm in the wrong.

I offered a definition, because you have been unable to provide one. A definition based on processes we know actually happen. Maybe it doesn't actually match what you actually mean when you use the term, but since you can't tell me what you mean, the only thing I can do is offer you a definition and see if you like it.

It's not a verb if it is a state of a process or an abstraction of a process (that can somehow be sensed).

But it's not.

In any case, "my subjective mental perception of blue" is [an angel].

Makes just as much sense my way as yours.

And this is what everybody here is beating their heads on the wall trying to get you to realize. It's that simple.

Define angel... I mean, quale. What do you mean by a state of a process here? What does this state do?

That's because we already know all this stuff about rocks.

Like the fact that they exist? Yes.

If we knew nothing about rocks but their observable description you have to answer "I don't know" to what they do and you certainly couldn't define them by your guesses of what they might be doing.

What are you talking about?

Observing a rock tells me what it's doing. A description of that observation likewise. What do you think science is based on?

Unlike you, I'm not afraid to say "I don't know". I think you need to learn to use that simple phrase.

I don't know what you think you're talking about when you use the word qualia, because you cannot define it.

Happy?

Furthermore, there's still a lot I'm sure we don't know about rocks, so even your extensive definition would be incomplete.

So. What?!

Seriously, how do you think this relates to anything at all?

What context for the purpose of qualia do you want me to speculate about?

I want you to tell me what they do, the same way we define rocks by what they do, the same way we define everything by what it does.

Because I'm never going to claim that I know what it is until I have sufficient evidence. Before I speculate about what qualia might do, let me explain why I really think it is a rational possibility that they do nothing - at least directly. In this regard, there really is the possibility in my mind that qualia are a unique type of phenomenon emergent from the special form of self-referential processing of strange loops consistent with your first "definition" you gave above that I quoted (really just a plausible explanation).

No, again that's incoherent. If qualia do nothing, they can't be phenomena at all.

Actually, since you believe in digital physics like me I can give you a direct analogy.

I wouldn't say I believe in digital physics, but I certainly don't reject it. It's interesting and seems plausible.

Everything in the universe that is energy or matter is produced by another form(s) of strange loop (for all I know it could be very similar or identical in form to the strange loop(s) that yields consciousness).

Mmph.

An electron (or whatever fundamental particle or energy building block you care to pick) is then paradoxically the tangible objective observable physical thing or process state that results from an underlying self-referential computational process.

There's no paradox here. We've just shifted the definitions of tangible and physical slightly.

Likewise, qualia are the tangible subjective observable mental/abstract thing or process state that results from an underlying self-referential computational process.

Then what does it do? Electrons do something.

The verb (do) might really become the noun (a thing).

No. You can't know what anything that existst is, only what things do; we can only observe, not know. We then define things by what they do. Nouns are verbs, not the other way around.

I realize this would normally be considered a philosophical reification error. But this is the one instance in reality where I think itmay be valid.

I think you have it precisely backwards, though.

What qualia "do" in this sense is simply to render abstracted perception computation subjectively tangible to "you" where the "you" and the "qualia" are reflected upon each other to be virtually the same.

So what you are saying is what I said, only much less clearly and with a lot of poorly-defined terms thrown in?

It's a closed loop. All self-referential objects including electrons, photons, and qualia are closed inaccessible loops. If you could somehow break the loop to analyze the phenomena the phenomena would disappear.

Not at all. Well, perhaps with electrons and photons under digital physics, but the analogy most definitely does not extend to neuroscience. We can and do examine the processes that give rise to consciousness without making consciousness vanish.

Thus, if qualia are intrinsic and necessary for you to experience you and be aware of your identity obviously this opens all sorts of other things qualia do by extension, like enable us to seek food, sex, and protect ourselves.

What do they do?

How am I doing Pixi?

Not so great.

It isn't. Stuff in the external world is objectively tangible to each of us after the veil of perception through our senses.

A tautology.

Since we can all sense these things it is rendered objectively verifiable through the common modes of language and description we can all share.

Yes.

Stuff in the internal world of our minds can only be subjectively sensed by the subject and as much as you appear to dislike the word, they are ineffable precisely because they are purely subjective.

No such thing.

There is no separation between the subjective and objective, only perspective, and perspective can shift. That's why I used that specific word in my definition earlier. The subjective is a persepective on a subset of the objective. It is not, and cannot be, "ineffable". Nothing is.

But they are nontheless tangible because the subject can "feel" them.

That means they are objectively tangible, which is what you said in the first place. (And is still a tautology.)

 

[PixyMisa]

I just wanted to say that I don't consider the argument between Pixy and FUWF productive.

I know Pixy's position, and it is perfectly compatible with FUWF's position -- you two are just using different terms and creating an argument where none exists.

Just my two cents.

You're absolutely right, which is why I keep jumping up and down about the need for precise definitions. Which is in turn why I dislike being given a lecture consisting half of strawmen and half of logical fallacies.

 

[rocketdodger]

You're absolutely right, which is why I keep jumping up and down about the need for precise definitions. Which is in turn why I dislike being given a lecture consisting half of strawmen and half of logical fallacies.

Well, I would give him a chance.

It might not seem so over here, but from what he posted on my thread in S&M he really does seem to know what he is talking about.

In fact, since he is the only person to ever speak about a specific type of NN as if he understands it, never mind the fact that he apparently works in NN simulation (!!!), I would say he is the single individual we can learn the most from here.

So just please don't get in a fight!

 

[AkuManiMani]

Pixi, we're still stuck on qualia

I'm going to reorder your points a bit to explain my position again:



I like this Pixi. I really do. It's a good explanation of qualia consistent with my beliefs. But neither you or I or anybody else has proven it so so we are not entitled to define qualia this way yet.

Science doesn't work backwards like this. It begins with descriptive categorical classification of observables and and ends in theories always subject to potential revision. You didn't get my digestion analogy so I'll try a simpler one.

[...]

But it all starts with the categorical observable itself. I have repeatedly given you definitions of this observable and you dismiss them. So you tell me what the observable is rather than just your mechanism for its creation which you think you've proven.

In the mental world of PixyMisa, entities do no exists unless he has an operational definition. He is also completely unable to distinguish such a definition from the thing itself.

For instance, when asked what pain is he responds that it's "a behavioural modification mechanism" and sincerely believes that this is an adequate response. In PixyMisa's stunted ontology abstracted functions are the only objects.

It's not a verb if it is a state of a process or an abstraction of a process (that can somehow be sensed). In any case, "my subjective mental perception of blue" is a quale. And this is what everybody here is beating their heads on the wall trying to get you to realize. It's that simple.

After nearly two years of explaining this to him he still doesn't get it. I'm not joking when I tell you that PixyMisa is either extremely deluded or severely handicapped. The problem is compounded by the fact that he's completely incapable of even recognizing the shortfall. Seriously, hes a waste of your time -- don't bother.

 

[FedUpWithFaith]

You're absolutely right, which is why I keep jumping up and down about the need for precise definitions. Which is in turn why I dislike being given a lecture consisting half of strawmen and half of logical fallacies.

Pot, kettle, black.

You don't even understand the difference between a definition and a conclusion. You'll only allow definitions consistent with your conclusions. Your last post to me was mostly ridiculous and incoherent. If somehow I could be wrong about all this, like one huge brainfart, you are obviously not the one who is going to "fix" me.

So is there anybody out there who agrees with Pixi or at least fully sees a rational logic behind all his objections to me in the last post who might be able to explain why he might be right, from a different perspective you can articulate, on the essence of creating definitions, hypotheses, and conclusions. I can't follow him. I'd argue he can't be followed but I'll keep an open mind for a little while longer.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Sorry, I can't parse that in any way that makes sense. Could you unpack it a bit?


What?


Sorry, I still have no idea what you are talking about.

It's all postmodern don't you know Pixy?

The "subject" is a network of multiple programs runnning in parallel, the "object" is self-referencing information processing... yet you get bourgeois when somebody complains?

That your subject is a network of multiple programs runnning in parallel, that your object is a self-referencing information processing... how do you know that?

Because that's how you constructed it.

Knowledge is just the self-organized cognitive process of the human brain or its simulation.

Should somebody point out that this is not based in actual sense experience... just tap your beret.

 

[FedUpWithFaith]

Well, I would give him a chance.

It might not seem so over here, but from what he posted on my thread in S&M he really does seem to know what he is talking about.

In fact, since he is the only person to ever speak about a specific type of NN as if he understands it, never mind the fact that he apparently works in NN simulation (!!!), I would say he is the single individual we can learn the most from here.

So just please don't get in a fight!

My bold: Really? Why do you say that? If you agree with Pixy can you give me your perspective by dissecting one of my posts on your own? I'd appreciate it.

 

[AkuManiMani]

My bold: Really? Why do you say that? If you agree with Pixy can you give me your perspective by dissecting one of my posts on your own? I'd appreciate it.

RD believes the same thing Pixy does, except his belief seems to spring more out of desperate hope. Hes likely to be shrill and evasive in defense of his beliefs which, IMO, indicates that on some level he has doubts about them. Pixy, on the other hand, is just a blockhead.

 

[PixyMisa]

Pot, kettle, black.

You don't even understand the difference between a definition and a conclusion.

Not even remotely true.

Again, you are simply assuming I'm saying something I'm not, and ignoring all my explanations.

You'll only allow definitions consistent with your conclusions.

Observations, FUWF. Observations.

Consciousness involves information processing. Feed information in, get information back. Incontrovertible.

Consciousness involves self-reference. Ask a self-referential question, get a self-referential answer. Incontrovertible.

You postulate something to which you attach the label qualia, which is somehow related to consciousness, but which you are unable to coherently define. I offer to help you out be suggesting a definition that is coherent, precise, and based on processes we know for certain exist in conscious systems.

You say you like the definition, and then you go on to lecture me for the next six hundred words on how wrong I am to offer it.

No. You are paying no attention to anything people are saying to you or even what you are saying yourself. I'm not interested in correcting your miscomprehensions any more once they start to seem deliberate.

Bye again. I'll see if you're still here in a week, and maybe you'll have learned how to communicate.

 

[FedUpWithFaith]

Pixi: "blah, blah, blah...."

When I see Pixi's posts and avatar they just remind me of the adults in Charlie Brown cartoons now.

"Wah wah wahhhh, wha, wa-wa-wa waaaahhhhhh"