Explain consciousness to the layman.

Status
Not open for further replies.
annnnoid said:
But the simple and unavoidable fact seems to be that we cannot, in fact, define whatever it is that makes us special. You can argue the details (behavior etc.) until you’re blue in the face, but the issues are unresolved.
Click to expand...

But you are wrong -- we can define what makes us special. At least, I can, and a great many others can.

So what we have here is a bunch of people that can list precisely what they think makes them special, and another bunch of people who presume to disagree, as if they have a better idea of what makes someone else special.

Look, if people like westprog and yourself want to disagree with me that a given behavior is what makes you special, well that is your right. It is you, after all. But you can't sit there and proclaim that I am wrong about what makes me special. In fact to do so is to deny exactly what you guys claim to support -- that humans are special because of their conscious volition and will. To do so is to call me some sort of a p-zombie that doesn't know about myself.

annnnoid said:
To whatever degree anything can be indisputable, that most certainly is. When there are issues of this magnitude that exist to such a degree of uncertainty, dismissing possibilities for no other reason than you find them distasteful is, at the very least, premature.
Click to expand...

Except when it comes to God I find the idea distasteful precisely because the possibility is so easily dismissed.

annnnoid said:
How can you possibly claim to know exactly what you are….when the blatant scientific consensus is that there does not exist an understanding of what you are. Either you’re lying, or you’re deluded, or you know something the international cog sci community does not know (or [gasp], you’re betraying religious behavior).
Click to expand...

That is one possibility.

The other possibility is that your understanding of this "international cog sci community" is incorrect, and your assessment of their position inaccurate.

Given that I read peer reviewed articles published by actual researchers almost every day, am at the forefront of commercial computing technology by profession, worked as a biology lab researcher prior to being a computer scientist, and can correctly label myself as someone who genuinely understands artificial intelligence since "A.I. programmer" is my actual title, I think I am in a pretty good position to have a more accurate assessment.

And my undoubtedly more accurate assessment -- at least, certainly more accurate than yours -- is that when researches make statements about "not knowing the whole story" or "having a long way to go," their actual meaning is much different than the meaning you attribute to them.

I don't know why I have to keep bringing it up, but when someone like Daniel Dennet says "we don't know the whole story" it doesn't mean "magic beans might be the missing part that we haven't figured out how to do with computers," it means "we know the brain is a biological neural network, we just haven't nailed down the exact topography and information flow yet." There is a huge difference between those two interpretations, and one is certainly closer to the meaning intended by Dennet -- and you know which one -- and to go around saying otherwise is simply the spread of misinformation.

Did you read that pdf I linked to, the proceedings from a 2005 symposium on machine consciousness? Does that sound like there is a consensus that the researchers "don't know what we are?" Absolutely not. They know a ton, and they are learning more every year, and anyone who is capable of reading can look at the research themselves and see how obvious it is that we know a great deal about what we are.

Where is the credible research that supports your position, that we don't know what we are, eh?

annnnoid said:
The fact that you find your condition ‘enlightening’ is telling though. Enlightening. Why do you suppose people prefer that condition…even if they’re wrong about what they’re enlightened about (as you must unavoidably be)? I hate to say it Dodger…but you’re beginning to sound positively religious.
Click to expand...

If being totally invested in rational thought is religious, then that isn't an insult.
 
Last edited:
dlorde said:
Interesting links, thanks. For those who may be interested, the 'Attractor Network' article is part of the Encyclopedia of Computational Intelligence.
Click to expand...

This is a perfect example.

This is agreed upon knowledge of the scientific community. It isn't crackpot made up woo, it is knowledge gained through empirical research, research that has results that can be repeated by anyone that cares to.

How can someone look at all this knowledge and then just dismiss it in one fell swoop? Do people think all these scientists are just fooling the world? That there is some conspiracy here?

I fail to understand how a rational unbiased observer can look at the depth of knowledge we have attained in this area of research -- and others -- and then say things like "there is no scientific consensus regarding what we are." What utter nonsense.

That is like saying scientists haven't reached a consensus on what a platypus is just because they don't share opinions on what its closest relative is.
 
Mr. Scott said:
Dennett's lecture "The Magic of Consciousness" is truly brilliant. He's one of the most extremely interesting people I know of
Click to expand...
Indeed. annnnoid presented us with one of the most dishonest examples of quote mining I've ever seen, and I've seen some real doozies in my time.
 
Pure Argent said:
You can represent negative and imaginary numbers in binary code, but it takes two bits to do it. 01 would be positive one, and 11 would be negative one (assuming that you are using positive and negative notation). You can do the same thing with imaginary numbers, with 01 being real and 11 being i.

You can even represent positive and negative imaginary numbers by using three bits.
Click to expand...

Well, depending on the architecture, it could represent anything I guess.

But is architecture of receiver the same as architecture of signal?

This is a key question in terms of consciousness and 'reality'. Our architecture determines how signals are represented, but could they have a different architecture themselves? Perception v objectivity iyswim. Everything (input) has to go through the architecture of our perception processor. If you can adjust a computer's 'perception' so significantly that 11 can represent 3 or minus 1, then could the same not be said for humans? Could the input signals be made to represent pretty much anything?
 
keyfeatures said:
Well, depending on the architecture, it could represent anything I guess.
Click to expand...
General purpose computers are called "general purpose" for a reason: They can be used to represent anything.

But is architecture of receiver the same as architecture of signal?

This is a key question in terms of consciousness and 'reality'. Our architecture determines how signals are represented, but could they have a different architecture themselves? Perception v objectivity iyswim. Everything (input) has to go through the architecture of our perception processor. If you can adjust a computer's 'perception' so significantly that 11 can represent 3 or minus 1, then could the same not be said for humans?
Click to expand...
See The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a HatWP

Could the input signals be made to represent pretty much anything?
Click to expand...
Yep.
 
PixyMisa said:
Yep.
Click to expand...

You're forgetting the architecture of the human processor. Everything has to be filtered through our processing which determines the limits (representation) of perception. Mistaking one possible signal for another (wife/hat) is just a problem of wiring. It's not really an fundamental issue of perception/processor architecture. The Man that Mistook his Wife for a Microwave wouldn't happen, neither would The Man who saw his wife in 6 dimensions. And, of course, I'm having to give examples of things which we have been able to realise 'exist' or can be conceived of. There may be many 'signals' and/or signal interpretations we just aren't able to interpret or be aware of.
 
Last edited:
If a human designs a machine with equal or greater intelligence (assuming we can decide what that is) to a human, and that machine commits an action that kills a person, where does the responsibility for that action lie?
 
PixyMisa said:
Nope.
Click to expand...

Yes, because everything has to be 'filtered' via our processor. So we only perceive the inputs and outputs of the computer in terms of our own inputs and outputs. We can't step outside of human reality. That is the only reality we know.
 
annnnoid said:
You also seem to contradict what RocketDodger has had to say about the issue…but I’ll let you take that up with him.
Click to expand...

Yes, the fact that two of your opponents disagree on anything means that their positions are threatened.

Instead, consider that the difference between then is the definition of the word "special" that they use.
 
Belz... said:
Why would my opinion on this matter ?

The question is, if you say we are special, then explain how so. Saying you can't define how we are special simply tells us that you have no idea if we really are or not.
Click to expand...

Not at all. I'm just trying to get at what is meant by defining a thing as 'special'. If it is that you can make a distinction, then wherever a distinction can be drawn, there is specialness. If no distinctions can be drawn then everything in the universe is everything else.

So can the distinction 'human' be drawn or can't it?

This is an issue of logic not opinion.
 
Last edited:
PixyMisa said:
Indeed. annnnoid presented us with one of the most dishonest examples of quote mining I've ever seen, and I've seen some real doozies in my time.
Click to expand...


Pixy, if nothing else, you certainly are predictable. The quote was in response to someone’s declaration that there is nothing special about human beings. As keyfeatures pointed out, something is special if it is different. The more different, the more special. Fairly simple reasoning. Whether Dennet ‘explained’ consciousness or not is academic (considering that other quote, it certainly does not seem to be the case), he still expressed it in those terms. Considering the variety and scope of mysteries that have existed (in addition to the manner in which he was applying the term)…describing something as the ‘last remaining one’ does, at the very least, make it singularly special.

So how, exactly, does this represent 'one of the most dishonest examples of quote mining I've ever seen'? Oh....hang on...I get it....Dennet claimed to have explained it, therefore he must have been lying when he described it as the last remaining mystery...or exaggerating...or extrapolating...or it was unintentional hyperbole...or was he indulging in some variety of dubious religious behavior...or maybe now that he's explained 'it', 'it' no longer was is the last the remaining mystery...so it never was...or something?

A simple 'no' will suffice.
 
keyfeatures said:
Not at all. I'm just trying to get at what is meant by defining a thing as 'special'. If it is that you can make a distinction, then wherever a distinction can be drawn, there is specialness. If no distinctions can be drawn then everything in the universe is everything else.

So can the distinction 'human' be drawn or can't it?
Click to expand...

Things that are different from other things are special. Well by that definition, everything is special.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom