Explain consciousness to the layman.

Status
Not open for further replies.
rocketdodger said:
While reading through http://www.aisb.org.uk/publications/proceedings/aisb05/7_MachConsc_Final.pdf it occurs to me that the presentations at this conference mirror the personality types on this thread ( and consciousness threads in general ).

There are some presentations with concrete logic being used, where they actually took the trouble to write software and hook it up to some robot, and demonstrate some aspect of their argument or theory.

There are other presentations made by people with less of a background in computing, that rely on more abstract logic, but nevertheless because they took the time to formally present an argument it comes off as still having some value to the reader.

And finally there is a single presentation that is written by some philosophy professor that essentially repeats the same old tired "Hard Problem of Consciousness" objections to machine consciousness, despite the fact that other presenters in the very same conference do a good job explaining exactly how the HPC isn't an obstacle to machine consciousness. Needless to say, this presentation was utter garbage compared to all the rest. Any formal logical arguments? Nope. Any hard data? Nope. Any references to relevant research less than 10 years old ? Nope. Anything that a person could actually learn something from? Nope.
Click to expand...

Your right we should scrap all human thought other than building robots and program software for them to build robots and program software for them to build robots and program software for them to build robots and program software for them to build robots and program software to build robots and program software for them to build robots and program software to build robots and program software for them to build robots and program software to build robots and program software for them to build robots and program software to build robots and program software for them to build robots and program software to build robots and program software for them to build robots and program software to build robots and program software for them to build robots and program software to build robots and program software for them to build robots and program software to build robots and program software for them to build robots and program software to build robots and program software for them to build robots and program software to build robots and program software for them to build robots and program software for them to build robots and program software to build robots and program software for them to build robots and program software to build robots and program software for them to build robots and program software to build robots and program software for them to build robots and program software to build robots and program software for them to build robots and program software to build robots and program software for them to build robots and program software to build robots and program software for them to build robots and program software to build robots and program software for them to build robots and program software to build robots and program software for them to build robots and program software for them to build robots and program software to build robots and program software for them to build robots and program software to build robots and program software for them to build robots and program software to build robots and program software for them to build robots and program software to build robots and program software for them to build robots and program software to build robots and program software for them to build robots and program software to build robots and program software for them to build robots and program software to build robots and program software for them to build robots and program software to build robots and program software for them to build robots and program software for them to build robots and program software to build robots and program software for them to build robots and program software to build robots and program software for them to build robots and program software to build robots and program software for them to build robots and program software to build robots and program software for them to build robots and program software to build robots and program software for them to build robots and program software to build robots and program software for them to build robots and program software to build robots and program software for them to build robots and program software to build robots and program software for them to build robots and program software for them to build robots and program software to build robots and program software for them to build robots and program software to build robots and program software for them to build robots and program software to build robots and program software for them to build robots and program software to build robots and program software for them to build robots and program software to build robots and program software for them to build robots and program software to build robots and program software for them to build robots and program software to build robots and program software for them to build robots and program software to build robots and program software for them to build robots and program software...........

Don't forget the $ and the coffee though.
 
Belz... said:
Irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant to what? If we are discussing how life operates thermodynamically, then it's certainly related. Especially if there's a view being put forward as to precisely how life is unique in its physical nature.

I don't see a major downside to being precise and accurate about this particular issue, but feel free to disagree.
 
westprog said:
The unique characteristics of life are more subtle that the way life uses negative entropy.
Click to expand...

Why don't you simply tell us what those unique characteristics are, westprog?

I mean jeez, you are able to so quickly dismiss every single argument everyone else makes, I expect you have an idea of what your own argument is, right?

Care to share it?
 
Belz... said:
To what I said. Life fights entropy. What effects it has on other stuff is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Saying that life "fights" entropy doesn't really give a precise description of what's going on. It's a tricky issue dealing with two not-entirely well-defined areas of science. It interested Schrodinger enough to write a book about it.
 
westprog said:
Saying that life "fights" entropy doesn't really give a precise description of what's going on. It's a tricky issue dealing with two not-entirely well-defined areas of science. It interested Schrodinger enough to write a book about it.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that entropy is not an "entirely well-defined area of science"?
 
mijopaalmc said:
Are you saying that entropy is not an "entirely well-defined area of science"?
Click to expand...

It's pretty well-defined - but is easily open to misinterpretation. The reasons for entropy - the arrow of time in the universe - are not fully understood. Why, when interactions at the atomic level are fully reversible- i.e., they could be played backwards and would work just as well - does the same not apply at the scale at which we live? An atom can absorb or emit a photon, but a glass jar will never re-assemble itself if broken.

So the how is well-founded, but the why is still mysterious.

(Incidentally, if you have a better or more precise definition or explanation, go for it. I will try not to feel personally attacked or aggrieved.).
 
Last edited:
westprog said:
It's pretty well-defined - but is easily open to misinterpretation. The reasons for entropy - the arrow of time in the universe - are not fully understood. Why, when interactions at the atomic level are fully reversible- i.e., they could be played backwards and would work just as well - does the same not apply at the scale at which we live? An atom can absorb or emit a photon, but a glass jar will never re-assemble itself if broken.

So the how is well-founded, but the why is still mysterious.

(Incidentally, if you have a better or more precise definition or explanation, go for it. I will try not to feel personally attacked or aggrieved.).
Click to expand...
Are you implying that entropy does not reign supreme in the hilited examples?
 
I love thinking about and discussing consciousness, but this thread is a wash now. I no longer think it's a skeptic/woo battle royal. It's more like a month long bout of finger wrestling.

I can't recall the OT poster mentioning his motivation for starting this thread. I assume it's hidden. I'll hang around briefly to see if that's spelled out, then sign off.

For a parting shot, here's some Deepak Chopra:

From Is Consciousness Connected to the Fine Structure of the Universe?:

So I was at this debate with Michael Shermer and Sam Harris at Caltech and the hall was full of techies unsympathetic to the concept that consciousness is primary and matter is secondary. Whenever I brought up the idea that consciousness is fundamental to the universe, they dismissed it and me, as “woo-woo”.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
westprog said:
(Incidentally, if you have a better or more precise definition or explanation, go for it. I will try not to feel personally attacked or aggrieved.).
Click to expand...

The entropy of a macroscopic system is the logarithm of the number of microstates that correspond to a given macrostate.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
But you don't know how that happens in the examples you cite?
Click to expand...

What I know isn't really important. It's a sufficiently tricky area that Stephen Hawking thought that time would go backwards when the universe started contracting. (He changed his mind later).
 
westprog said:
... Why, when interactions at the atomic level are fully reversible- i.e., they could be played backwards and would work just as well - does the same not apply at the scale at which we live? An atom can absorb or emit a photon, but a glass jar will never re-assemble itself if broken.

So the how is well-founded, but the why is still mysterious.
Click to expand...

Isn't that a question of probabilities, i.e. statistical thermodynamics? AIUI, there are many more ways for the particles in a system to be disordered than ordered, so in ordered dynamic systems with a large number of particles, disorder will tend to increase, thus the arrow of time...?
 
mijopaalmc said:
The entropy of a macroscopic system is the logarithm of the number of microstates that correspond to a given macrostate.
Click to expand...

dlorde said:
Isn't that a question of probabilities, i.e. statistical thermodynamics? AIUI, there are many more ways for the particles in a system to be disordered than ordered, so in ordered dynamic systems with a large number of particles, disorder will tend to increase, thus the arrow of time...?
Click to expand...

That seems pretty accurate - but of course "disorder" has a particular meaning in this case which doesn't necessarily correspond to the intuitive meaning.
 
westprog said:
It's pretty well-defined - but is easily open to misinterpretation. The reasons for entropy - the arrow of time in the universe - are not fully understood. Why, when interactions at the atomic level are fully reversible- i.e., they could be played backwards and would work just as well - does the same not apply at the scale at which we live? An atom can absorb or emit a photon, but a glass jar will never re-assemble itself if broken.

So the how is well-founded, but the why is still mysterious.

(Incidentally, if you have a better or more precise definition or explanation, go for it. I will try not to feel personally attacked or aggrieved.).
Click to expand...

I often wonder why there is air and why it is constituted so perfectly for us to breath it.
 
To me it reads as just another ill-fated attempt at arguing against a fully scientific knowledge of life.

"Here is a pretty good definition of life, in terms of entropy"

"Entropy isn't as clear cut as people think, so looking at life scientifically in terms of entropy doesn't prove anything."

"But it is clear cut."

"Well, however much people wonder about it is a personal thing."

I don't think the goal posts are even on the field anymore.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom