Consciousness question

[HypnoPsi]

What exactly makes you think that information processing generates conscious awareness? How does it work? By what mechanism? What experiments demonstrate this?

I just did an experiment not too long ago. I asked my computer, by way of Norton, if it was clean of viruses. I confirmed that it had none. A while ago, it let me know RIGHT AWAY that it had eliminated adware that was potentially harmful to the system.

It did what it was programmed to do, and we do what we're programmed to do. Which is to not only to observe and react, as all "programmed" things are to some extent (living or not), but also to hypothesize and assume, and to take THAT a step further and to test our assumptions and self-correct our information.

How does any of this generate, cause or become awareness?

What conditions are required? What level of complexity is required? What's the least complex method of creating one unit of consciousness and how was this determined?

What from the following list do you believe is conscious?:

A thermostat

A thermometer

A cock-and-ball toilet cistern

A mousetrap

A wind-up alarm clock

A fridge light and/or an outside sensor light

What is the logic by which consciousness is determined to occur in any or all of the above examples? By what method does information processing generate awareness?
_
HypnoPsi

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

The cock-and-ball in my toilet cistern processes one unit of information - whether or not the tank is full of water. Is that one unit of information then exactly equal to one unit of consiousness?

If consciousness is sentience, sapience and self-awareness, then no, not by a long shot.

If consciousness is pure, simple awareness (having or showing realization, perception, or knowledge) then no, since there is no mechanism for expressing realization, perception implies cognition, ability for physical sensations, and forming mental images or concepts and none of that is occuring, and knowledge requires storage and utilization of externally sensed information.

 

[PixyMisa]

If conscious awareness is information processing and if information processing is physical/chemical reactions then how haven't you eneded up with panpsychism?

Because all information processing involves physical processes, but not all physical processes involve information processing.

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

You are claiming neurological activity creates consciousness. Prove it.
_
HypnoPsi

Because the sessation of neurological activity in specific regions of the brain stops consciousness. Upon reestablishing said neurological activity, consciousness is observed again.

Studies of persistent vegatative state, comatose, and sleeping patients all verify this FACT.

Ask a comatose person about their coma, they have no recollection of consciousness. The very notion of consciousness requires recollection of sentience, sapience, and self-awareness.

Where did the consciousness go during a coma, if it went somewhere, there would be information recorded about the conscious experience and recorded in the brain that could be accessed to prove unconscious people have conscious experiences when neurological activity recorded during unconsciousness validates the fact that they were unconscious.

Where is this evidence?

 

[PixyMisa]

What is the mechanism by which information processing produces conscious awareness of that information processing and/or the result of such information processing?

I've answered this at least three times. Reflection.

In terms of physics and chemistry that doesn't make much sense. In a most basic type of thermostat the expansion/contraction of the mercury/alcohol in the thermometer component causes an increase/decrease in the air pressure in the mercury/alcohol container. As this air pocket gets squeezed (as the temperature increases) it will push against a guage at the top of the thermometer which turns off the central heating. As the air pocket expands (as the temperature drops) there is less pressure and the guage at the top becomes depressed turning the central heating back on.

Yes.

Now, if we just had a simple glass thermometer alone and no pressure guage, the pressure build up of temperature would still cause the glass tube to expand slightly, displacing the air around the tube. Meaning there is still a chain reaction whenever thermal, kinetic and chemical energy is transferred and converted.

So?

In conclusion, information is always being transferred and processed as energy is transferred in any system at all.

No.

So why do you think a thermostat is conscious but not a thermometer? How do you explain why information processing should cause conscious awareness (however rudimentary) anyway?

Already answered. If you don't like the answer, that's your problem. If you see a problem with the answer, point it out.

At a minimum, consciousness requires response to stimuli, and internal representational state. Input, output, memory, and logic. A thermostat has all of these. A thermometer does not. Anything that has all of these can be said to be minimally conscious, according to Dennett's definition. Anything that is missing any of those cannot.

Consciousness can also be usefull defined to require awareness. This minimally requires a second unit of memory and logic connected to the first. By this definition, a thermostat is not conscious, but more complex mechanical devices are.

 

[HypnoPsi]

What is the mechanism by which information processing produces conscious awareness of that information processing and/or the result of such information processing?

In essesence, how does a human think to itself: "I am thinking"

Nope. I'm not just asking about humans. In fact, humans are the least of my concern. What about grass-snakes? What about insects? What about earthworms which have ganglion spread throught their bodies and no discernable brain?

First, there's the internal dialogue, generated in the temporal cortex, that allows us to reflect on something, basically separating our "selves" from the thing we are contemplating.

So, you're saying, first, that a temporal cortex is necessary to separate "self" from "context" and that this separation produces conscious awareness? That just describes the ability to process "self" in relation to "not-self" - it doesn't explain why we are actually aware of the distinction?

So, in your model, insects and snakes have no consciousness then?

How exactly have you determined that the temporal cortex produces consciousness?

Atoms don't do this. Plants don't do this. Animals have only shown the ability to understand self in a rudimentary fashion (dog's know their name and probably realize they are a dog and not a tree). Gorillas with language skills might have the realization that they think as they learn the words humans endeavour to teach them, but we don't know yet.

So you're saying that many (but not all) lower life forms are all non-conscious p-zombies?

How does a brain come to realize it is thinking? Storing information and processing that information to make new information that it can use to process with more additional information obtained through sensory perception. Artificial intelligence has not accomplished this feat as of yet. The human brain has.

Actually, I wrote an cognitive modelling program many years ago at Uni that did just that. In a conversational manner, it asked the user what musicians they liked from a selection of artists and music and then determined how much they liked, rock, folk, pop, etc.,. It would be very easy for a professional programmer to include the question "would you like to hear artist X, just now" and then trigger media player, making the programme spontanious as well as interactive and capable of learning. But I don't see why that should make me think it's conscious.
_
HypnoPsi

 

[cpolk]

How does any of this generate, cause or become awareness?

It is aware when the tank is empty, and the mechanism refills it. It is aware when the tank is full, and the mechanism stops refilling. That is the extent of the awareness of a toilet. It does not gag at the odor; it does not say, "Ewww, Ravioli again?!" It does not distuinguish what goes in or out; it's only purpose is empy/full, and it is aware of wheter or not it is empty or full.

What conditions are required? What level of complexity is required? What's the least complex method of creating one unit of consciousness and how was this determined?

Unit wha...? Why are you trying to judge consciousness in units? What evidence do you have that you can measure consciousness in units, and what is the measure of a single unit? Whatever scale you're using, I'm not aware of it. Please enlighten me so that I may process that information for ya.

What from the following list do you believe is conscious?

Again, I think you are confusing the word "conscious" with a philospohical abstraction, such as "living". Are those things alive? No. Do they exist? Yes. Do they have consciousness? Yes, they do what they are designed to do. They (meaning the entire structure, or any part of a larger structure) are conscious of whether or not the conditions are in place for their mechanisms to react.

 

[HypnoPsi]

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking.

It's really very simple:

How does conscious awareness arise from information processing?

Why would processing information gathered by using my natural senses lead to psychicism of any kind? I do not see what the two have in common, since "psychic" abillities are achieved by processessing information beyond the capabilities of the 5 senses.

Panpsychism does not mean "psychic abilities" it means "all is psyche (mind/consciousness)"

I'm not sure what you're refering to when you write, "the thing in the mind". If you are talking about the thing in your head, that is your brain. It processes information from your senses and gives you a perception of the outside world, which allows you to react based on previously retained information, while subconsciously retaining information regarding internal functions that are not necessary to your interaction to the outside world, such as blood flowing through your veins.

Why do we have internal experience/qualia? Why am I "aware" of my self, my surroundings and my thoughts? How does this arise from information processing?

I believe you are confused about the subject at hand. Your toilet has as much consciousness as it was built to have. When the handle it pulled, a mechanism is triggered which flushes the toilet and refills your tank, and another mechanism stops the refill so that it doesn't overflow. If the mechanisms fail, you end up with a mess. My stomach works in a similar way, because that's how it was designed to work.

Does it have the same consiousness as a human? No. We have more senses, and a better ability to perceive our world beyond, "The tank is empty, now it's full."

I'm not confused about the subject at hand at all, and I'm certainly not asking if my toilet cistern has as much "consciousness" as a human being. I don't see any reason to believe it has any "consciousness" at all!

Do you think that the cock-and-ball cistern in my toilet has some rudimentary form of consciousness, albeit one that is limited to "The tank is empty, now it is full."?

What about a moustrap? That doesn't reset itself (or vary) as a cock-and-ball cistern does. Does that mean it has no "consciousness"? If so, then why is that variance, resetting or binary choice important? How was it determined that this is what produces consciousness, however rudimentary?
_
HypnoPsi

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

Nope. I'm not just asking about humans. In fact, humans are the least of my concern. What about grass-snakes? What about insects? What about earthworms which have ganglion spread throught their bodies and no discernable brain?

I have no idea if grass-snakes are sentient, sapient, or self-aware because I do not know of any study done on grass-snakes sense of self, neurological activity during consciousness and unconsciousness, etc. Ditto for other animals. But I can make a guess.

So, you're saying, first, that a temporal cortex is necessary to separate "self" from "context" and that this separation produces conscious awareness? That just describes the ability to process "self" in relation to "not-self" - it doesn't explain why we are actually aware of the distinction?

Sorry, temperal cortex uses your experiences with languange and sound to mimic a voice in your head. Just start with that. We are aware of the distinction between self and not-self through life experiences, as I've stated earlier. The temporal cortex allows us the ability to talk to ourself about this fact, that's all I'm saying.

So, in your model, insects and snakes have no consciousness then?

If consciousness is sapience, sentience, and self-awareness, insects and snakes have rudimentary forms of all of these, thus they do have consciousness.

How exactly have you determined that the temporal cortex produces consciousness?

It allows internal dialogue. Sorry for the confusion.

So you're saying that many (but not all) lower life forms are all non-conscious p-zombies?

No.

Actually, I wrote an cognitive modelling program many years ago at Uni that did just that. In a conversational manner, it asked the user what musicians they liked from a selection of artists and music and then determined how much they liked, rock, folk, pop, etc.,. It would be very easy for a professional programmer to include the question "would you like to hear artist X, just now" and then trigger media player, making the programme spontanious as well as interactive and capable of learning. But I don't see why that should make me think it's conscious.

Because it isn't. However, if the program decided to write lines of code in the program to tell itself that the second musician it interacted with was likeable in some fashion, and then used those new lines of program to prefer the second musicians answers, and then use those answers to bias the recommendations of music to other artist because of the input from the second musician who used the program, now you're moving towards consciousness.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

Your toilet does not "refill itself" just as you do not eat and crap in one fluid motion.

That comment is utterly hilarious to me for some reason.

 

[Mercutio]

Of course in the smallest interaction beween one particle and the next, there exists some form of awareness. So what should that tell us then, except that the whole environment is conscious ... or, a by-product thereof.

No.

Is that a fact?

Actually, yes.

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

HypnoPsi,

What evidence do you have that we humans have consciousness, because everyone else might be p-zombies, and you wouldn't know the difference?

What evidence do you have one way or another?

 

[Mercutio]

That's nothing more than eliminativism and denial. You are ignoring the fact that consciousness means awareness.

No. Not true. I am not denying anything about experience. I am simply not adding the explanatory fiction layer that you are. I see the tree. I do not need to explain how I become conscious of the image of the tree, because that does not occur. That alleged process is an artifact of our language, not of our experience. Your experience with our language, usually so helpful, works against you in this case. You say you do not remember "becoming conscious". Of course not. I would wager you have essentially no true memories from before you were part of the language community.

I hope you caught the part in Blackmore's speech (it was just a brief bit) when she expressed her frustration with people misinterpreting Dennett as denying conscious awareness...

 

[HypnoPsi]

No, consciousness still, is "the viewer" watching the screen. Yet, for anything to appear on the screen, it requires the processing of information. Now, as for what constitutes the observer, who knows? One would have to conclude it were some other form of information.

I'll go with that.
_
HypnoPsi

 

[cpolk]

How does conscious awareness arise from information processing?

Information is gathered, processed, stored, and used to create assumptions, which when tested, creates new information that will be stored and processed to create more new assumptions. You use the term "I" to designate your position according to your surroundings.

Panpsychism does not mean "psychic abilities" it means "all is psyche (mind/consciousness)"

Sounds like woo to me.

Why do we have internal experience/qualia? Why am I "aware" of my self, my surroundings and my thoughts? How does this arise from information processing?

"Internal experiences" are things like blood running through our veins and breathing during our sleep. Are you talking about your emotions? Those are caused by, and can be altered by, chemicals. They are caused by internal processes reacting to stimuli; you "feel" excited because your heart is racing, not the other way around.

Do you think that the cock-and-ball cistern in my toilet has some rudimentary form of consciousness, albeit one that is limited to "The tank is empty, now it is full."?

It has to have some awareness of whether or not the tank is empty, otherwise the mechanism would not work.

What about a moustrap? That doesn't reset itself (or vary) as a cock-and-ball cistern does. Does that mean it has no "consciousness"? If so, then why is that variance, resetting or binary choice important?

As Tom and Jerry has shown us, it cannot discern between a mouse and your hand, either. It is not designed to serve that function. I ask you this - unless the mechanism is aware that there is something there, how will the trap spring?

If so, then why is that variance, resetting or binary choice important? How was it determined that this is what produces consciousness, however rudimentary?

It must be aware, it must be conscious, of whether or not the conditions are in place for the mechanism to react. Otherwise, the mechanism would have no reason to react.

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

It appears we have functionalism, eliminative materialism, amaterialism, reductive materialism, and some form of pantheist pansychism bouncing off each other in this thread.

This is fun.

I think I'm an eliminative/reductive materialist, though I'm not sure because I just learned about the terms today.

 

[PixyMisa]

Actually, I wrote an cognitive modelling program many years ago at Uni that did just that. In a conversational manner, it asked the user what musicians they liked from a selection of artists and music and then determined how much they liked, rock, folk, pop, etc.,. It would be very easy for a professional programmer to include the question "would you like to hear artist X, just now" and then trigger media player, making the programme spontanious as well as interactive and capable of learning. But I don't see why that should make me think it's conscious.

Why should you think it's not conscious? What aspect of conscious does it not demonstrate?

 

[Mercutio]

I'll go with that.
_
HypnoPsi

Um....why? These studies you dismiss as being correlative do demonstrate that the "Cartesian theatre" (which is what Iacchus is promoting) is absolutely unsupported.

 

[cpolk]

What about a moustrap? That doesn't reset itself (or vary) as a cock-and-ball cistern does. Does that mean it has no "consciousness"? If so, then why is that variance, resetting or binary choice important? How was it determined that this is what produces consciousness, however rudimentary?

A baby human will giggle while swallowing poison; an adult human will know better. Is the adult human more "conscious", because it can do things the baby can't? Is "consciousness", like speech and mobility, therefore something that is learned? Or is it merely knowing, based on design, when conditions are met for a mechanism to react? Does your comparison of a toilet to a mouse trap work when we apply it to differing stages of human development?

 

[cpolk]

Actually, I wrote an cognitive modelling program many years ago at Uni that did just that. In a conversational manner, it asked the user what musicians they liked from a selection of artists and music and then determined how much they liked, rock, folk, pop, etc.,. It would be very easy for a professional programmer to include the question "would you like to hear artist X, just now" and then trigger media player, making the programme spontanious as well as interactive and capable of learning. But I don't see why that should make me think it's conscious.

Let's see what it can and what it cannot do. It can become conscious of your favorite artist. It can become conscious of what music you like to listen to, and when you like to listen to it. It cannot be aware of what effects that music has on your ears, or to your "emotions", other than the information you can give it using your descriptive language; which will be limited, as language was created for human discussion based on human perception.