Consciousness question

[cpolk]

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.

Which one am I?

PLEASE don't tell me I'm the panpsyche... LOL If so, then at least explain to me why I am something that sounds so woo.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

What are atoms and molecules then, and the nature of the infomation that is passed between them? What about the Universe as a system as a whole?

It does not process that it itself is processing. In fact, the universe "as a whole" isn't processing anything. It is merely reacting directly. Combine enough of these direct reactions though, and you get PARTS of the universe that are in fact processing. Not stars, they are just big reactions. I'm talking the parts of the universe that are our brains. Those can process pretty well.

SOME of the universe can run an inner process, like my desktop computer. Not all of it, and not even most of it from what we can tell.

Show me how the sun runs an internal process wherein it decides to output light. I myself have yet to see any sort of logic gate structure.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

That the possible options include the idea that the physical creates consciousness, that consciousness creates the physical or that both have some other metaphysical origin, is completely beside the point.

Why?

 

[HypnoPsi]

To ask how information processing gives rise to conciousness is silly. Conciousness IS information processing.

For what reason have you concluded that consciousness IS information processing? How does information processing generate conscious awareness?

To say that a terlet systern is akin to a computer program is silly. At most it can be said to be a variable, which is a PART of a computer program. If you want to make a FULL one, you better arrange a long series of this into a cohesive system.

I never said that a toilet cistern is akin to a computer program. I do, however, note that it processes the variance in information and responds accordingly. What I have been asking repeatedly for in this thread, is for one of you to describe the minimum system that will produce consciousness (and why anything less will not produce consciousness).

So far we've had a couple of people say that thermostats are conscious but not thermometers for reasons that don't seem entirely logical. I'm just offering the example of a cistern and mousetrap to better understand what you all believe and why you believe it?

You really don't understand the difference between a mere light switch and a complete computer program? If you can't comprehend THAT, I doubt you'll be able to see the difference between a thermometer and awareness. The thermometer does not have a mechanism to do internal calculations. There is no chain reaction occuring inside it aside from a very "direct" heat transfer through the medium. In no way is it a computer program.

I have no idea what you are referring to or why. I don't think I've even discussed light switches. You think that calculations are important in creating consciousness? Why? How many calculations? What type of calculations? We could look at a cock-and-ball cistern as operating on the basis of the addition or subtraction of water as a variable resulting in the water pipe being plugged or unplugged by the see-saw effect upon the airball.

What in your view is the least complex system of information processing that produces consiousness that we could build? What does it need to "do" to produce consciousness? How was this determined?

I think it will be very amusing when you say that a terlet is a computer.

Why would I say that a "toilet" cistern is a computer? I'm asking you to explain your beliefs about consciousness and what is the minimum required to produce it?
_
HypnoPsi

 

[cpolk]

Show me how the sun runs an internal process wherein it decides to output light. I myself have yet to see any sort of logic gate structure.

It does not "decide" anything; it only reacts to stimiuli with corresponding mechanisms. It does not have a brain, so psychology is not part of its function. Having psychology and having consciousness is not the same thing.

Is that what is at the core of this discussion?!

 

[HypnoPsi]

What are atoms and molecules then, and the nature of the infomation that is passed between them? What about the Universe as a system as a whole?

Exactly! Micro and macro - all systems.
_
HypnoPsi

 

[PixyMisa]

For what reason have you concluded that consciousness IS information processing? How does information processing generate conscious awareness?

Reflection.

So far we've had a couple of people say that thermostats are conscious but not thermometers for reasons that don't seem entirely logical.

If you don't think the reasons are logical, you need to state why.

 

[HypnoPsi]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1462612&postcount=855

Your link does not direct me to any post in which I say that cognition is irrelevant to the discussion of consciousness.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1463146&postcount=884

Your link does not direct me to any post in which you explain why you think that information processing is the cause of our being aware of cognitive processes. However.....

Your separating "self" from everything else is good, I'll certainly grant you that. But what specifically is it about the temporal lobes you think generates our conscious awareness of "self" to contast against our conscious awareness of thoughts/objects/senses, etc., and where are they produced?

Would you say that an insect or an earthworm is therefore not conscious at all (basically, a p-zombie)?
_
HypnoPsi

 

[PixyMisa]

Micro and macro - all systems.

So?

 

[HypnoPsi]

So, do you think that the cock and ball in my toilet cistern has a very, very, rudiementary "awareness" of the water level in the tank?

Yes.

You have guts, I'll grant you that.

But, alas, I don't think any part of my toilet is conscious at all, however slightly. How will you prove this to me? Would you say that a mousetrap is conscious? If not, why not?

When it is full, it has a mechanism that stops the water, if it is working properly. The mechanism does not stop it when it is half full, and it does not stop it when it is three-quarters full, it stops it at the point where it was made to stop it, and it does this consistently.

Sure does. Why does that mean it's conscious exactly?

Is it aware of "existence"? Only of the level of water in the tank. Since it does not have life, concepts of "life", "death", "injury", etc. do not exist to it.

Since those things have meaning to our existense, they are a part of our individual consciousness.

That's all very nice. But it's not what I'm asking. I'm asking you what exactly causes conscious awareness at it's most fundamental level. I'm not asking you if thermostats, cisterns and micetraps are aware of their "existence" or mull over existential issues like life and death. But please, feel free to to tell me if you think they do!

I'm asking you if you think that one unit of information being processed generates consciousness? And/or to explain exactly what you think is the minimum conscious system.

I think you are trying to give "consciousness" a more philosphical meaning than what it literally has. If it helps you cope with your existence, then yes, you are without a doubt a much more complex structure than your toilet.

You don't have to reassure me that I'm much smarter than my loo. Now just explain your minimum conscious system? That's all I'm asking for.
_
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

Your toilet does not "refill itself" just as you do not eat and crap in one fluid motion. There is one mechanism that takes in and a separate mechanism that flushes out. If you construct the mouse trap so the it would reset itself, then it would do so. The mechanism would "sense" the presence of an object, and snap shut; another mechanism will "sense" that it is shut, and it will open back up.

This is completely irrelevant. A cock-and-ball cistern processes information just as a mousetrap processes information - except that one get's reset every time it is 'activated'. Do you believe that one or both of them generate consciousness or not?

What is your minimum system for the generation of consciousness?
_
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

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.

Fine. So what exactly is your minimum system for the generation of consciousness?

And...

Explaining your answer either way, is a thermostat conscious?
_
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

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.

A cock-and-ball cistern processes information. So does a mousetrap. But only one of them automatically resets. Are one or both conscious? What is your minimum system required for the generation of consciousness?
_
HypnoPsi

 

[cpolk]

Now just explain your minimum conscious system? That's all I'm asking for.

Bear with me, because I think I know where we're going now. You are confusiong "psychology" with "consciousness".

Your question: Is the toilet conscious of the water in its tank?

My answer: Yes, it is. It's mechanisms are aware of the water level and pressure and act accordingly.

Your intended question: Does my toilet "choose" to refill itself?

My answer: No, it is merely reacting. It does not have a brain, therefore does not have psychology, and therefore cannot perform the action of "choosing" as part of its function.

Nevertheless, it is still conscious of whether or not the tank is full.

 

[Iacchus]

It does not process that it itself is processing. In fact, the universe "as a whole" isn't processing anything. It is merely reacting directly. Combine enough of these direct reactions though, and you get PARTS of the universe that are in fact processing. Not stars, they are just big reactions. I'm talking the parts of the universe that are our brains. Those can process pretty well.

SOME of the universe can run an inner process, like my desktop computer. Not all of it, and not even most of it from what we can tell.

It's all about the "channeling" of electronic particles/charges, in my opinion.

Show me how the sun runs an internal process wherein it decides to output light. I myself have yet to see any sort of logic gate structure.

And what is it specifically that tells the sun how to "behave" like the sun if, not some form of information process?

 

[HypnoPsi]

Because the sessation of neurological activity in specific regions of the brain stops consciousness.

How do you know it actually "stops" consciousness?

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.

Actually, that's not always true. It's very rare, but some people do claim to remember some things in a somewhat fuzzy manner.

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.

Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. I have no idea.

Where is this evidence?

Evidence for what? That consciousness continues? There's plenty of qualitative evidence for that but none of it conclusive or verifiable. All I know is that I still have no clear proof that consciousness can ever be created or destroyed and so see no reason to believe it is.

Again, just state the minimum system you believe is required to generate consciousness and we'll have something to talk about.

Do you believe a thermostat is conscious?
_
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

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.

Define this reflection of yours? What's the minimum reflective system?

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.

Do you agree with Dennett that a thermostat is conscious? What about a toilet cistern? How have you determined that the above list is required to produce consciousness?

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.

Okay, what about a completely mechanical calculator with cogs and wheels that can hold a constant in memory. (http://www.xnumber.com/xnumber/pic_arithmometer.htm) Is it conscious?

Which of the following are conscious:
http://www.xnumber.com/xnumber/mechanical2.htm
_
HypnoPsi

 

[cpolk]

HypnoPsi,

I would like a shot at answering from your perspective, since we obviously have vastly different definitions of "consciousness". So tell me, what is your definition consciousness, and how is it measureable? We need to decide on a mutual definition before we can have a mutual discussion about it.

 

[HypnoPsi]

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.

I am quite aware that you are not suggesting that a toilet is aware of what is being flushed.

But, let me be completely clear, you actually believe that a cock-and-ball toilet cistern is consciously aware (at some rudimentary level) that it's either full of water or empty, right?

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.

Hey, I'm just asking.

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.

So you think that being "alive" is also necessary for consciousness? Yes or no?

What defines life exactly? Is a virus alive? What about a computer virus?
_
HypnoPsi

 

[PixyMisa]

A cock-and-ball cistern processes information. So does a mousetrap. But only one of them automatically resets. Are one or both conscious? What is your minimum system required for the generation of consciousness?

Already answered.