Are You Conscious?

[rocketdodger]

Does the word ‘consciousness’ have the same meaning as the word ‘human consciousness’?

It depends.

Like, if you ask certain people here whether they think dogs are conscious, they might say sure -- so clearly it doesn't mean "human consciousness."

But then if you ask those same people why a certain machine isn't conscious, they will say "because it can't do all the stuff a human can do."

Makes perfect sense, eh?

 

[PixyMisa]

We cannot answer a question unless we define the words in the question. We cannot answer ‘what is conscious’ unless we define the word ‘consciousness’.

Does the word ‘consciousness’ have the same meaning as the word ‘human consciousness’?

So go ahead, define your terms.

I already did.

Consciousness is self-referential information processing.

 

[annnnoid]

....and surprise surprise, Pixy does not answer the question.

I asked, quite specifically:

Does the word 'consciousness' have the same meaning as the word 'human consciousness'?

 

[PixyMisa]

....and surprise surprise, Pixy does not answer the question.

I asked, quite specifically:

Does the word 'consciousness' have the same meaning as the word 'human consciousness'?

"Human consciousness" is your term, not mine, so it is up to you to define it.

Or I can define it, if you like. Human consciousness is cheese. Edam, or, better, Jarlsberg. Neither soft nor hard, but with a firm texture and a nutty flavour. A ton of Jarlsberg cheese human consciousness is eaten per hour in the United States.

I did say that you had to define your terms, didn't I? Yes. Yes I did.

 

[annnnoid]

.........yawn.......you're being evasive Pixy. It is pretty obvious Pixy.

...once again Pixy. There is this word 'consciousness'...and there is this word 'human consciousness'. You have used them both.

Do they mean the same thing. It's a very simple question. Yes....or....no. What...is...the...problem?

 

[PixyMisa]

.........yawn.......you're being evasive Pixy.

Nope.

It is pretty obvious Pixy.

Nope.

...once again Pixy. There is this word 'consciousness'

Which I have used and defined.

...and there is this word 'human consciousness'.

Phrase.

You have used them both.

Where, exactly, have I used the latter when I was not referring to or directly quoting another person's post?

Do they mean the same thing.

By whose definition? In what context?

It's a very simple question.

It's very simple if you define your terms.

Yes....or....no.

One of those, most likely.

What...is...the...problem?

You have failed to define your terms.

What do you mean by "human consciousness"?

Do you mean - a conscious process residing in a human brain? Then yes, a "human consciousness" is simply a conscious process.

Do you mean - a conscious process along with all the (largely unconscious or at least distinct) processing that we associate with human minds such as vision and language? Then no, a "human consciousness" is a superset of a simple conscious process.

Do you mean - half a pound of fine imported Norwegian cheese? Could go either way. Could go either way.

Do you mean something else?

Define your terms, or I get to define them for you. "Human consciousness" is not generally an expression I would use, precisely because it is ill-defined. I note that you use it. I also note that you haven't at any point offered to define it.

 

[westprog]

Yes, you are.

You are claiming that it is possible to change the behavior of a system without changing the order of events within the system.

Such a thing, if true, would imply that there is something more fundamental than the interactions between particles since the only way to maintain the order of events is to maintain the same interactions between the same particles.

Naturally this is one of those "paraphrase, don't quote" posts. The idea that you can have time dependence without order dependence is obviously ridiculous. However, you can have order dependence without time dependence, which is what you have with a Turing machine model, and this is what I'm claiming doesn't describe what the brain does.

Can the behaviour of a time dependent system be changed by altering the duration of events? Obviously. Otherwise it wouldn't be time dependent. Is a Turing machine a model of a time-dependent system? No, obviously not - and a clue to that is the absence of the word "time" in the description of the system.

The fact that particle interaction is highly time dependent is just another little aside. Particles have nothing to do with this any more than general relativity. This is just obfuscation to avoid addressing the specific point in question.

 

[Belz...]

In a way, we kinda already reproduce it every time we make babies. If we wanna gain technical mastery over consciousness we need not only a way to physically verify that experiences are happening without the need for self-reports

Well, that's the problem, since self-reports are all we have to go one so far. How do you propose to "detect" consciousness ?

 

[Belz...]

Work as what? A wind turbine?

Who to the what, now ?

 

[Belz...]

....and surprise surprise, Pixy does not answer the question.

I asked, quite specifically:

Does the word 'consciousness' have the same meaning as the word 'human consciousness'?

There should be a difference ? Of type or of degree ?

 

[Dancing David]

Define your terms you say.

“Am I conscious?” You say yes. And you say that you not only know what human consciousness is, but that it is ‘almost trivial’.

Well it is, regardless of what sort of mystics mumbo jumbo people want to add to it. It is a catch all phrase with excessive cultural baggage.

So 'almost trivial' like 'digestion' and 'respiration'. Still cool but not anything too weird or fantastic.

No, actually, we don’t know what it is, we guess (or theorize, or speculate, or whatever). Period.

And that is just as bold an assertion as any in this thread.

many of the processes are well understood, some less so. the pathways of sensation are perception are fairly well mapped and getting stronger. Now the process is not fully deliniated but it is also not a total mystery.

You have over stated your case, and not defined an operational defintion.

….and Pixy will reply…’Wrong, we do know what it is’

Oh yeah Pixy….and you will, therefore, be receiving the next Nobel prize.

….prove it (read on)!

Almost trivial you say….consciousness is almost trivial. Are you, therefore, almost trivial (since you are a consciousness)? Why not, then, take your trivial abilities and go out tomorrow and create one of these ‘almost trivial’ human beings.

Wow, now that is a strange conflation, you have set up a false congruency. And now have set a whole straw goal around it.

Strange, mote, eye.

Anything that trivial shouldn’t take more than a couple of days to produce. I mean, god did it in seven days…and you’ve already said that you do, in fact, know who and what you are….like completely or are there any details missing….nah, we’ll just have to take you at your word. But how about we give you an extra day or two over god. He did it in seven, so we’ll give you nine (trivial would be seven days, with ‘almost’ I figure you’ll need an extra two). That’s mid next week. Can you create one of these trivial consciousness things by next week? As it’s so trivial, why don’t we put some money on it. How many people here are actually willing to put their money on Pixy, that he can create an ‘almost trivial consciousness’ by next week? Y’know what Pixy, I doubt you’d find anyone willing to drop a dime on you. Actually, if I gave you ten years, I still doubt there’s anyone who’d drop a dime on you.

Either you are jesting or just proved Poe's law yet again.

So what do we have to do. Scientifically.

Why don't you give us a defintion of consciousness and then we can talk about the next step.

Unless you are just here to arm wave and make attacks on Pixy.

-first, we’ve got to define exactly what Pixy is going to create for us by next week. Something called consciousness….human consciousness, to be exact (the ‘almost trivial’ kind that Pixy so specifically referred to)

You started so well and now a couple of days later all we have is a pathetic diatrice, really?

-in order to create it, we’ve got to define what it is
-but keep in mind, you’re not creating something new, you’re copying something that already exists (an ‘almost trivial’ human consciousness…as you put it), and before you can ever copy something you’ve got to define what you’re copying….or else you cannot say that you are copying it (copying what?)… INO….”an almost trivial human consciousness is this, exactly….and I will be creating exactly the same thing”…signed: Pixy (define your terms…always!)
-then, when we all know exactly what it is that Pixy is going to do (this will likely occur after Pixy receives the Nobel prize for having definitively and conclusively explained human consciousness)
-Pixy will go out an do it (having created a new life form, Pixy might have to take cover as various lunatics may believe he represents the second coming).
-one almost trivial consciousness coming up….by….let’s say the end of the month, that oughta be enough time to handle something that trivial

Sorry Pixy, if I’ve got to choose between you and Chomsky, his reputation speaks for itself. From what I can see, the folks at these forums are the only one’s who’ve ever heard of you….and I really doubt that’s going to change.

I can see that you are not going to last here, just a couple of days and you have no critical thinking, just some hyperbole.

Chomsky was wrong, oh too bad. He was the reason I got into psychology, he is agreat political pundit however.

 

[westprog]

Who to the what, now ?

Whether something works or not depends entirely on what we want it to do.

That's the standard we use for a human brain. The idea is not that the human brain should generate electrical/chemical signals. The idea is that the brain makes the person function. If the person dies due to what the brain does or does not do, then that's a functional failure.

There are plenty of devices that have modes in which they are doing something, but are failing totally in the role for which they are used.

In particular, a device that needs to complete its operations in a given time is not working if it fails to do that.

 

[Belz...]

Whether something works or not depends entirely on what we want it to do.

Yes, but it's not an either/or situation. Things can work partially.

 

[AkuManiMani]

In a way, we kinda already reproduce it every time we make babies. If we wanna gain technical mastery over consciousness we need [...] a way to physically verify that experiences are happening without the need for self-reports

Well, that's the problem, since self-reports are all we have to go one so far. How do you propose to "detect" consciousness ?

To be perfectly honest, I'm not really sure exactly how that will be done; an unknown is an unknown is an unknown. Like qualia, it was once thought that atoms were undetectable, in principle, and that they were nothing but a philosophical concept irrelevant to science. It took decades of theoretical work and empirical investigation before they were finally detected and their properties understood. All I can tell you with certainty is that we must continue to study -living- brains [the only entities we know for sure to support consciousness] with an eye toward pinning down our own consciousness and understanding it as a -physical- phenomena. We're not going to get there by presupposing "definitions" to placate our ignorance in this area, or deceiving ourselves into thinking that we have enough science available to reproduce it in our technology. The brutal truth is that we most certainly do not.

A critical part of science is not just utilizing available knowledge but having the maturity to recognize and face up to what you don't know. No major scientific advances or discoveries were made by individuals who assumed that the science of their day had sufficient answers. Advances were made by those who approached science with a spirit of inquiry and were willing to honestly face the unknowns

 

[westprog]

Yes, but it's not an either/or situation. Things can work partially.

Sometimes things can work partially. However, that is not to say that when something is doing something in an unsynchronised way that it is working partially. It might be in entirely unproductive activity.

 

[annnnoid]

Once again Pixy. There is consciousness (which you have claimed exists somewhere on these forums, or something like that) and there is human consciousness (the [as you call it] trivial variety which exists, we shall assume, in a reasonably similar fashion in each of the six odd billion bodies breathing on this planet).

Are they the same thing?

Is the meaning of the word “consciousness” (that which you say exists somewhere on these forums) the same as the meaning of the word “human consciousness” (the trivial variety that exists, by definition, in a human being).

Yes…..or…..no.

……..and then I note this curious admission…..human consciousness is ill-defined. Reeeaaaaalllly. You actually are admitting that there are things we do not know about ourselves (….and thus admitting that there are things you do not know about yourself….?). C’mon Pixy, this is just out of character. Could you, perhaps, speculate on what areas are ill-defined….why ….to what degree….and of what relevance are these ill-defined issues?

…actually I’ll summarize it for you. They are, quite simply, the difference between you spending the next ‘x’ number of years at these forums, and you picking up this year’s Nobel prize. Those are the dimensions of what is yet to be, as you put it, defined about you and me.

I know, in your opinion they’re trivial (these ill-defined aspects of us). Maybe I’ll take your word for it…..so can I expect to see your comprehensive theory of everything (conscious) posted at this forum by the spring (I know, I said the end of the month, but winter is a time of seasonal affective disorder and I’m sure even megalomaniacs have down time….not that I’m suggesting you are one….I’m just saying that megalomaniacs have down time….and if you feel some empathy with the expression then don’t be too concerned if you are SAD [it’s just one of those inexplicable {whoops…..did I say inexplicable….I should remember never to use that word around people who don’t think it exists} things that trivial consciousness do from time to time]).

….point being (and I’m glad you finally admitted it) that while you may be able to say that ‘something you call consciousness’ exists at these forums...or where ever it is (actually, you can call it whatever you want….how about trimetroduplacerdyne …..tmtdperd for short….sounds a lot more impressive than mere consciousness…especially as ours is so obviously trivial)…you can in no way shape or form scientifically (remember that inconvenient little thing you always bring up called the scientific method) assert that what exists at these forums is the equivalent of human consciousness. Why? Because, as you so clearly point out….human consciousness is ill-defined (how ill-defined is not defined...20%...50%...99%...we don't know....and if you're going to assert a scientific claim ["this is consciousness"] then you have to establish the conditions....clearly and explicitly). You can’t define something by something that isn’t (sounds positively….[gasp] religious [gasp…Pixy….religious….where’s the thought police when you need them!!!).

Can you.

Yeah Belz, there is a difference of both type and degree. Obviously we’ve got to define the types and degrees (as well as how we arrive at those definitions [philosophy of science I think it is…thus we get into some murky territory]) before we ever apply them to something as substantial (I think it’s substantial….Pixy thinks it’s trivial…I don’t know your opinion so I won’t speculate) as consciousness. Right now I’m not going to try.

….and no offence to any one of your eighteen odd thousand indubitably dancing posts there…David, but if I do leave here it will not be because of anyone here. What I wrote there is hyperbole.

Why do I say ‘we don’t know what it is’. Very simply, because ‘we’ don’t. Evidence of this. Well, we could just take the following questions:

“Do we collectively have a definitive / conclusive description of and explanation for human consciousness. If so, what is it? If not, how far are we from achieving one? What issues have yet to be resolved?”

…. and send them to the relevant academics at randomly selected universities around the world. Psychologists, neurologists, philosophers…the folks in the cog sci departments who have so many letters after their names they need half a page before they even begin a correspondence.

….what kind of response do you think we would get (we already know where Chomsky stands on the issue…as for the rest…?)? I’d bet everything I have that the only consensus would be that there is no consensus. If you disagree I imagine it wouldn’t be too difficult to give it a try.

…as for my false congruency. It was also (I thought rather obviously) hyperbole. It also illustrates what is (and not just in my opinion) a very substantial issue. That the answer to the question ‘what is consciousness’ is not just a scientific description of us. The answer to the question ‘what is consciousness’ is us (we aren’t after all, studying a sack of potatoes). You are not asking an objective scientific question when you peer into the heart of the question of consciousness. You are asking your thought to describe itself, and not just metaphorically. There is something very fundamental that is not known about consciousness and it is directly and specifically related to our ability to know it (how and why would extend this post far beyond tolerable limits). That is not a scientific issue….it is a metaphysical issue….and beyond that. This is the equivalent of the hard problem (or my understanding of it).

….as for the Pixy challenge….a jest of course (though I’d be the first to celebrate the event if he actually were able to achieve such a feat). Pixy is always insisting that consciousness exists on this board (or here, or there, or somewhere). All I insist is that he define his terms (since he’s the one using them…I long ago concluded that human consciousness is ‘ill-defined’ so I don’t bother trying [except, of course, to use the default position…it is what occurs specifically in humans]).

Is it human consciousness (or an explicitly specific equivalent thereof), or is it tmtdperd. I think we have established quite clearly and conclusively that what Pixy is referring to is tmtdperd because, as he himself admitted…..we don’t know what human consciousness even is. It is ‘ill-defined’. Just how ‘ill-defined’ could perhaps be qualitatively (if not to some degree quantitatively) determined by sending out that little questionnaire of mine.

In my opinion, the character of those areas that elude definition specifically explain the conclusion that they don’t exist (as well as our inability to recognize that they do…and thus identify [describe] them). In other words, we don’t see them because we don’t know how, not because they aren’t there or because we don’t have adequate scientific instruments or nomenclature (what did St. Paul say….we see as though through a glass darkly…..that’s from the bible…..a place inhabited by consciousness’s of dubious veridical abilities according to Dawkins [of course Dawkins has yet to explain his own consciousness so I guess the jury is still out on who is actually right]). That's just my opinion, and this post is already way too long.

 

[rocketdodger]

However, you can have order dependence without time dependence, which is what you have with a Turing machine model, and this is what I'm claiming doesn't describe what the brain does.

Unless "time" is defined relative to a series of ordered events.

Which .... it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second

Can the behaviour of a time dependent system be changed by altering the duration of events? Obviously. Otherwise it wouldn't be time dependent.

But -- as always -- you are completely ignoring the why.

The reason behavior is changed is that the order of key events -- namely, particle interactions -- is changed.

This is why you won't find a single instance of a behavior changing without also finding a different order of events.

The fact that particle interaction is highly time dependent is just another little aside. Particles have nothing to do with this any more than general relativity. This is just obfuscation to avoid addressing the specific point in question.

Yes westprog, particle physics and general relativity have nothing to do with the physical world. You are absolutely correct.

Do you realize that if it were not for the educational value in constantly constructing posts about how wrong you are I would have ceased this discussion long ago? Because I literally learn absolutely nothing from you yourself -- a testimony to how well educated you are in these issues.

 

[Belz...]

To be perfectly honest, I'm not really sure exactly how that will be done

The problem is that we infer consciousness in others from behaviour. So unless we can tell how that behaviour stems from some physical process, we may be stuck with that criterion. As for our own consciousness, introspection has never been a good source of knowledge.

Like qualia, it was once thought that atoms were undetectable, in principle, and that they were nothing but a philosophical concept irrelevant to science. It took decades of theoretical work and empirical investigation before they were finally detected and their properties understood.

And yet atoms, as discovered, weren't like they used to think they were. Plus, atoms are a thing, while consciousness is a process. You can't detect "running".

 

[rocketdodger]

In particular, a device that needs to complete its operations in a given time is not working if it fails to do that.

Unless the rest of the world slows down proportionally.

Oops -- there is that whole "general relativity" thing again! Just because general relativity is an accepted scientific fact doesn't mean we have to account for it! Sorry, sorry, I won't bring up reality any more, I know it destroys your pet theories.

 

[westprog]

Because I literally learn absolutely nothing from you yourself

Yes, I've noticed that. A shame.