Consciousness question

[PixyMisa]

You should take a few programming classes. It would give you some insight into what I'm talking about.

Indeed.

And read Hofstadter's Godel, Escher, Bach.

 

[HypnoPsi]

It gradually becomes obvious that you are using a very different definition of consciousness than the majority of our language community. Where others say that someone has lapsed into unconsciousness, you will point out that they merely have ceased to respond--but how do we know that this causes the cessation of consciousness? When someone dies, again you question whether this means they have ceased being conscious!

If it's majority opinion that matters to you then I think you'll agree that most believe in an afterlife. Why not try asking some people if they think they'll be conscious or unconscious in the afterlife and see if your limited view of the word consciousness still applies?

The bottom line here is that you have faith in the expiration (of consciousness) hypothesis. And this faith of yours isn't backed up by anything at all. Indeed, you don't seem to understand any of the neuroscience (sic) behind any of it yourself, taking only other's word for it! That's faith, plain and simple.

If you can't answer the question of whether or not only brains produce consciousness or if thermostats do as well then you have to admit that you don't even know where to start or any real reason for believing as you do. You're just following the herd.
_
HypnoPsi

 

[Dark Jaguar]

If it's majority opinion that matters to you then I think you'll agree that most believe in an afterlife. Why not try asking some people if they think they'll be conscious or unconscious in the afterlife and see if your limited view of the word consciousness still applies?

Only for defining the terms, not in determining the validity of a claim.

The bottom line here is that you have faith in the expiration (of consciousness) hypothesis. And this faith of yours isn't backed up by anything at all. Indeed, you don't seem to understand any of the neuroscience (sic) behind any of it yourself, taking only other's word for it! That's faith, plain and simple.

The bottom line is you ASSUME it is faith despite the vast evidence we HAVE in fact offered. All evidence leads to just one conclusion. Conciousness seems to vanish. Maybe it doesn't, but we have no evidence leading to such a conclusion. The default position therefor is that we have about as much awareness after death as a machine does after shutdown. I'm running this analogy into the ground, I know, but it fits very well.

If you can't answer the question of whether or not only brains produce consciousness or if thermostats do as well then you have to admit that you don't even know where to start or any real reason for believing as you do. You're just following the herd.
_
HypnoPsi

I can in fact answer that question. Thermostats do not have any level of conciousness even approaching a human being. As to whether it is ONLY brains, it is very likely not so. If a computer is built of sufficient and the CORRECT complexity, we will produce a new conciousness. In fact, many projects are getting closer and closer to this all the time. Check the various projects MIT is working on. Unfortunatly I can't offer any links...

We "start" with what we observe. We "end" with the most suitable explanation for what we observe. Faith is irrelevant.

 

[Mercutio]

If it's majority opinion that matters to you then I think you'll agree that most believe in an afterlife. Why not try asking some people if they think they'll be conscious or unconscious in the afterlife and see if your limited view of the word consciousness still applies?

The bottom line here is that you have faith in the expiration (of consciousness) hypothesis. And this faith of yours isn't backed up by anything at all. Indeed, you don't seem to understand any of the neuroscience (sic) behind any of it yourself, taking only other's word for it! That's faith, plain and simple.

If you can't answer the question of whether or not only brains produce consciousness or if thermostats do as well then you have to admit that you don't even know where to start or any real reason for believing as you do. You're just following the herd.
_
HypnoPsi

Um...no.

Seriously, I will be very happy to talk about this with you again after you have watched the videos. Right now, I can't tell whether you are redefining things because you are unaware of the research, or despite an awareness of it. If you watch those vids, and still sing this tune, it will answer a lot.

 

[HypnoPsi]

It's more about the organisation than the quantity.

What specific organisation of matter/energy is necessary to produce consciousnesss and why does it occur when things are organised this way? Why doesn't it occur when they're organised differently?

What about cat's, dogs, rabbits and snakes? What about insects? How and why are you defining what is and isn't conscious? What about Dennett's thermostats? What about my calculator?

What about them? Consciousness is quantitative.

Do you or do you not believe the above things are conscious? It's a simple question.

Not properties, processes. Information processing, to be specific.

Okay... I'm still not sure what reason you have to conclude that certain processess generate consciousness rather than certain properties, but I'll take that as your position. My calculator processes information. So does a thermostat. How do you explain this information processing generating consciousness?

Wrong again.

I haven't shown, in detail, how consciousness is generated. I don't need to. It has been shown that it is generated by the brain.

When was this shown? Who did this? When did they do this? What did they look like? What was their name?

Are you saying you think only brains generate consciousness? How do they process information in such a way that it generates consciousness?

You have no understanding at all of what Dennet is talking about, do you? "What about a smaller thermostat?" Sheesh.

Actually, my personal opinion is that Dennett doesn't understand Dennett. Either way, let's be clear about what a thermostat is and does. It is affected by changes in temperature causing a chain reaction to turn off or on the heating in your house. But nothing is at absolute zero and for every action there is an equal or an opposite reaction. So are all chemical reactions generating consciousness all the time? If not, why not? Processing information just means reacting to a signal. That's all that neurons and thermostats do, in truth.

I have absolutely no idea whatsoever why the universe is the way it is let alone why it even exists at all.

It is difficult to fathom the confusion of ideas that could give rise to such questions.

Oh, do tell!

As I said before, we are p-zombies. P-zombies are conscious.

Read this:

http://www.answers.com/philosophical zombie

Again, and as in the link above, the very purpose of creating the philosophical device of a p-zombie is to contrast it against our conscious state.

Until there is clear evidence, as opposed to circumstantial evidence, that consciousness that consciousness can be created or destroyed why do you believe it can be?

Because it is. Because - even if we restrict ourselves to human consciousness, and to outright creation and permanent destruction of same - we observe this hundreds of thousands of times a day.

How does human birth and death demonstrate the creation and destruction of consciousness?

Even the energy that produced the singularity that became/was the Big Bang is believed to have came from somewhere.

That is not a coherent statement.

Take it up with the "Big Splat" proponents.

It's perfectly describable. We describe it all the time.

I said M/E is ultimately indescribable (due to infinite regression).
_
HypnoPsi

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Stop trying to tell me what I believe. I've made my position clear. I believe that consciousness cannot be created or destroyed for the same reason that you believe what appears to us as matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed - there's no evidence of such happening.

So in your opinion the universe is composed of matter, energy and consciousness, is this correct?

Oh, and I can tell you what you believe by the words and concepts you use, even when sometimes you dont know it!

 

[HypnoPsi]

But there is no evidence for the existence of ghosts.

There's not even qualitative evidence for the existance of ghosts????

I have no evidence for the creation of destruction of consciousness plain and simple. As such, I have no reason to believe it can be created or destroyed.

Yes you do. What you don't have is evidence to the contrary.

What direct, unambiguous, and clear evidence do I have that consciousness comes into existence with birth and ceases with death? What specific type of information processing generates consciousness? How does information processing generate consciousness?

Again, do you disagree with Dennett about thermostats being intentional systems with beliefs about the world? If so, why? If not, why not?

I agree. Because they are.

Okay, so in your view thermostats generate consciousness. As you are no doubt aware thermostats are a very simple device. When the alcohol or mercury expands or contracts it triggers a switch that either turns the heating off or on.

How does this create consciousness? Is it the whole of my central heating and fridge that's conscious or just one part of it (presumably the alcohol/mercury as it expands/contracts)?
_
HypnoPsi

 

[PixyMisa]

What specific organisation of matter/energy is necessary to produce consciousnesss and why does it occur when things are organised this way? Why doesn't it occur when they're organised differently?

The system has to be organised so that it processes information.

Do you or do you not believe the above things are conscious? It's a simple question.

And I gave you a simple answer: Consciousness is quantitative.

Okay... I'm still not sure what reason you have to conclude that certain processess generate consciousness rather than certain properties, but I'll take that as your position. My calculator processes information. So does a thermostat. How do you explain this information processing generating consciousness?

Consciousness is nothing more than a series of representational state changes. Dennett points this out with his thermostat example. Once you understand that consciousness is quantitative, you find that far from being mysterious, it is almost unavoidable.

When was this shown? Who did this? When did they do this? What did they look like? What was their name?

Me, today. Billions of others, for thousands of years, but me, for one, and today, for one example.

Are you saying you think only brains generate consciousness?

No. Consciousness is, as I said, a straightforward information-processing phenomenon. But human consciousness is produce by the human brain.

How do they process information in such a way that it generates consciousness?

Reflection.

Actually, my personal opinion is that Dennett doesn't understand Dennett. Either way, let's be clear about what a thermostat is and does. It is affected by changes in temperature causing a chain reaction to turn off or on the heating in your house.

Right. Representational state changes. Information processing. That's what consciousness is.

But nothing is at absolute zero and for every action there is an equal or an opposite reaction.

So?

So are all chemical reactions generating consciousness all the time?

No.

If not, why not?

The information is not representational.

Processing information just means reacting to a signal.

No.

That's all that neurons and thermostats do, in truth.

No.

Oh, do tell!

Why did you choose to misquote yourself there?

You said:

Is an alcohol based theromostat permanently drunk? What about mercury based ones?

To which my response was entirely appropriate.

Read this:

http://www.answers.com/philosophical%20zombie

Again, and as in the link above, the very purpose of creating the philosophical device of a p-zombie is to contrast it against our conscious state.

Yes, and it's complete nonsense. Read this: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52504

P-zombies are conscious.

How does human birth and death demonstrate the creation and destruction of consciousness?

Directly.

Take it up with the "Big Splat" proponents.

That has no bearing on the subject.

I said M/E is ultimately indescribable (due to infinite regression).

Well, since we do in fact describe it, this is clearly not true. Ultimately or otherwise.

 

[PixyMisa]

There's not even qualitative evidence for the existance of ghosts????

No.

What direct, unambiguous, and clear evidence do I have that consciousness comes into existence with birth and ceases with death?

Consciousness doesn't actually come into existence with birth, that needs to be cleared up. It forms gradually starting with conception.

But it does terminate upon death, of course.

Now, what direct, unambiguous, and clear evidence to we have? Well, we can talk to living people and confirm that they are conscious. We cannot talk to dead people at all. When people die, all signs of consciousness cease, invariably and irrevocably.

What specific type of information processing generates consciousness?

Depends on the exact nature or type of consciousness you mean, but essentially, it is a case of reflection.

How does information processing generate consciousness?

Consciousness is information processing. Consciousness is generated by the brain, because the brain is an information-processing system.

Okay, so in your view thermostats generate consciousness. As you are no doubt aware thermostats are a very simple device. When the alcohol or mercury expands or contracts it triggers a switch that either turns the heating off or on.

Yep. It's all there. Stimulus, response, internal representational state. What more do you want?

How does this create consciousness? Is it the whole of my central heating and fridge that's conscious or just one part of it (presumably the alcohol/mercury as it expands/contracts)?

That's what consciousness is. It's a very simple consciousness, indeed, it's the simplest possible consciousness. You are the same, you just have more bits.

 

[HypnoPsi]

Yes. But since they act in all ways like conscious beings, they necessarily have internal processes that act precisely - both subjectively and objectively - the same as consciousness. So they are conscious.

Okay, so you're taking Dennett's line (which is actually that genuine p-zombies can't ever exist; but you were never going to get that so never mind).

Returning to my central heating and my fridge. Why is it (is it?) only the thermostat that generates consciousness, in your view? Surely our saying that a thermostat processes information is a subjective assessment on our part, no? Surely what is really happening is just some very simple exchanges in thermal and chemical energy, yes? That's something that occurs throughout the whole of the fridge and central heating system. Explain?
_
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

P-zombies are a paradox. The very idea is completely illogical.

Well, at least you seem to understand Dennett's position.
_
HypnoPsi

 

[PixyMisa]

Okay, so you're taking Dennett's line (which is actually that genuine p-zombies can't ever exist; but you were never going to get that so never mind).

It's more than that: The concept is not logically coherent. P-zombies are provably conscious, no matter what definition of consciousness you use, and no matter what epistemological foundation you subscribe to. Saying that we are p-zombies is just making the point that consciousness is not in any way magical, but simply a mechanical process.

Returning to my central heating and my fridge. Why is it (is it?) only the thermostat that generates consciousness, in your view?

Stimulus, response, internal representational state. The thermostat has all of those. Brains certainly do. Calculators - well, simple calculators have a sort of discontinuous consciousness, unlike thermostats. They don't have permanent or continuous internal state. In effect, they die a lot.

Surely our saying that a thermostat processes information is a subjective assessment on our part, no?

No. Absolutely not. Information and information processing are objective, physical, and quantifiable.

Surely what is really happening is just some very simple exchanges in thermal and chemical energy, yes?

That's all that the human brain does.

That's something that occurs throughout the whole of the fridge and central heating system. Explain?

Stimulus, response, internal representational state. That's what consciousness is.

 

[HypnoPsi]

If alcohol could somehow interrupt the process by which a thermostat's individual parts communicated, that might actually MEAN something to us.

Let's talk about that "communication" you mention. In a thermostat that's just the transference of thermal and chemical energy, right? How does that generate consciousness? What specific systems and parts do you need to have in place to create consciousness in your view?

My fridge and cental heating are all intimately involved with chemical and thermal energy right down to the water that comes out of my shower and the roast that get's frozen until the weekend in the freezer. What parts of this system are generating consciousness and what parts aren't and why?
_
HypnoPsi

 

[Dark Jaguar]

What parts? It's the SYSTEM that does it.

What part of a story is "generating the story" and what parts aren't? You need ALL the words, but they can't just be randomly thrown in, they must be arranged in a very specific way.

It is the net combination of the entire system that produces conciousness. If you asked me to define exactly how a program operates, I can do so with a very simple one. A light switch can be thought of as the very simplest program that can be made. It recieves input and generates output. The input is the switch. Flip it, and the output is either to change to "on" or "off". Very predictable. We can enhance this in many ways. For example, one could just add a bunch of extra switches in a chain, but this isn't very much of a step, no matter how many switches you add. That merely means it takes a much larger number of inputs to get the same output. Let's add some lightbulbs and some extra wires. Now then, what we have is a lot of possible results. You just leave all the ingrediants sitting there, you have nothing. Put it all together, you can have a system which can count upwards. However, it must be put together correctly.

Let us step it up a notch. What do you need to make a clock? You need some sort of timing mechanism. You need something constantly changing it's state in a way that can be measured. Our brains appear to have such a mechanism. I recall hearing about how certain cells spend their time simply generating a certain chemical which, when a certain amount is reaches, interrupts the generation of that chemical. When it reduces to a certain level, the generation begins again. This produces a biological "tick".

Let me ask you something. Can you tell me, in what way, specifically, I can design Windows XP Professional Edition Service Pack 2 as an OS, running off of whatever firmware you want to use for this? The entire thing is needed after all to get a full OS running. If you can't, how can you say an operating system even exists?

That is a stupid question isn't it? You can determine for yourself that an OS exists AND is merely the product of a computer's actions. The OS isn't some esoteric thing. It is just the natural consequence of the computer's operations. You may not understand the code behind it, though you might want to. All the evidence is right there. Turn off the computer, the OS, or at least all SIGNS of it, cease to be. Sure, maybe the OS continues to live on, for after all an OS can't be created or destroyed just like matter/energy can't.

You see, the thing is, I can't really abide by the logic you are using because when I apply ANY of it to a computer program, it all applies by the same standards but it all still reaches the same obsurd conclusions, which ARE absurd for the logical reasons already brought up. I think it just takes using the computer model to illustrate just how clearly and apparently this is the case.

The awareness part is no different than any other part of our brain's operation, except in what it does. Some parts are very "direct" with very little awareness needed. They take in a single input and put out a very specific output for that specific input. However, for more complicated functions, it takes a process that takes in a lot of input, over time, is able to compare and contrast the input, and then make a decision based on all that data collected over time.

Make no mistake, if a machine was designed with all possible inputs and all possible outputs as a result of those, it would not be something I could consider "aware", however it would clearly act in the same way. We, as humans, can recieve the SAME input and respond to it in different ways. The difference? The ability to compare the current input to past input over the course of a life. If it was merely a program that output something specific from a specific input, then context would not be applied. There are MULTIPLE intelligent and valid responses to the exact same input. The correct one depends on PREVIOUS input. If you go on from there to expand the program to actually compare the current input to previous input and make a decision on the correct response considering THAT, congratulations, you have conciousness! Way to go!

 

[HypnoPsi]

What you are postulating is that consciousness survives as something that does not interact with anything in any way whatsoever. That means that it doesn't exist.

Nope. I'm taking my being conscious as a given. I lack evidence that my consciousness was ever created or will ever cease to exist is all. There is no postulating since I genuinely have no idea exactly what comes next. How do you know consciousness cannot interact with other consciousnesses in whatever comes next?
_
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

A robot CAN be concious, and in fact robots slowly are becoming more and more concious, if you simply program it to behave just like a human. That's all that is needed, a "well programmed computer" as you put it.

And what about thermostats then? They're hard-wired as opposed to programmed (well, actually, modern ones can be programmed). How exactly do they generate consciousness? What's the important factors here that you believe creates consciousness. Be specific. Why isn't the rest of my central heating and frindge conscious?
_
HypnoPsi

 

[PixyMisa]

Nope.

Yes you are.

I'm taking my being conscious as a given.

We all do.

I lack evidence that my consciousness was ever created or will ever cease to exist is all.

Nope. You most definitely have evidence that your consciousness was created. You may choose not to consider it conclusive, of course. (But you'd be wrong.)

There is no postulating since I genuinely have no idea exactly what comes next.

If you are postulating a "next", then you are also, necessarily, postulating what I said. If you are postulating that your consciousness was not created, likewise.

How do you know consciousness cannot interact with other consciousnesses in whatever comes next?

I don't have to. All I need to know is that living people interact with the universe as conscious beings, and dead people do not. If there is any "next", then it is causally disconnected from the universe.

We have a term for that sort of thing: imaginary. It means that it does not exist.

 

[Z]

Hyp, you're an ignorant child, wailing into the wind. Until you can define what you mean by consciousness, precisely, discussing it with you is pointless.

To me, consciousness includes sensory processing, memory, self-awareness, and the ability to distinguish self from other. As such, humans become conscious some time after birth, and move in and out of varying degrees of consciousness throughout life. As such, animals, insects, fish, birds, trees, and mold all have varying levels of consciousness. Rock and dirt generally do not.

As such, our computers might be conscious, provided they have these qualities, and whatever other qualities I might be presently forgetting. Your thermostat would not be, as it lacks self-awareness and distinguishing abilities.

As such, consciousness is entirely dependent upon, and created by, physical processes.

So, by the definition I choose to use, those things which appear conscious are conscious, and consciousness is a mere set of physical processes in action. And, as such, your arguments are irrelevant and childish.

Now, if you want to provide a coherent, accurate, and useful definition of consciousness, please feel free. Your last attempt to do so was pathetic, at best.

 

[PixyMisa]

And what about thermostats then? They're hard-wired as opposed to programmed (well, actually, modern ones can be programmed). How exactly do they generate consciousness?

By both (a) responding to stimuli and (b) changing their internal representational state.

What's the important factors here that you believe creates consciousness. Be specific.

See above.

Why isn't the rest of my central heating and frindge conscious?

Because it doesn't do that. Unless you have some strange things in your fridge.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

And what about thermostats then? They're hard-wired as opposed to programmed (well, actually, modern ones can be programmed). How exactly do they generate consciousness? What's the important factors here that you believe creates consciousness. Be specific. Why isn't the rest of my central heating and frindge conscious?
_
HypnoPsi

It hasn't been correctly programmed.

By the way, the statement "they're hardwired as opposed to programmed" pretty much shows your ignorance of what programming is. THAT IS PROGRAMMING. It is very hard to ALTER, but it is in fact a programmed system. It is also very simple. A program is nothing more than a series of physical reactions. It is a chain reaction that just so happens to process data in ways we like.