Explain consciousness to the layman.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow. After 122 pages, we have been imbued with the knowledge that conscousness (whatever it is) is computational in nature.

Well. At least consciousness isn't something that randomly stumbles about like a drunk, but behaves systematically.

But we already knew that.

Looks like the layman has demanded too much this time.
 
Toontown said:
Wow. After 122 pages, we have been imbued with the knowledge that conscousness (whatever it is) is computational in nature.

Well. At least consciousness isn't something that randomly stumbles about like a drunk, but behaves systematically.

But we already knew that.

Looks like the layman has demanded too much this time.
Click to expand...



Which is as simplistic an explanation as saying life is carbon based.

Saying life is carbon based is as useless an assertion when it comes to explaining the cause for why things are alive as it is to say that consciousness is computation based to explain why things are conscious..

What is even more simplistic is to assert that the cause for consciousness is computation and consciousness is no more than some computation.....just like we would consider the assertion that the cause for life is carbon and carbon is life.

The operational definition that carbon is the basis of life and thus is the cause of life leads one to conclude that a lump of charcoal is alive.....that would be monumentally simplistic and useless.

Likewise the operational definition that computation is the basis of consciousness and thus is the cause of consciousness may lead one to conclude that a calculator is conscious.....that would be monumentally simplistic and useless.
 
Here is a quote taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computation :

"Computation is any type of calculation[1] or the use of computer technology in Information processing.[2][3] Computation is a process following a well-defined model understood and expressed in an algorithm, protocol, network topology, etc. Computation is also a major subject matter of computer science: it investigates what can or cannot be done in a computational manner."

X = computational manner

Can X be used in order to well-define in details what is NOT-X?

Is there a model of computation which allows well-defined models to be changed during computation, and if not, can we conclude that any well-defined model is some kind of filter or restriction, which has direct or indirect influence on the predictable results?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
X = computational manner

Can X be used in order to well-define in details what is NOT-X?
Click to expand...

I'd say no. Can X even be defined without being able to define NOT-X? Such a contradiction appears at the heart of all distinction-making. How can you have a thing / not-thing when the relative complement is unknown (and therefore so is the initial set). Division becomes arbitrary. Logic circular.
 
doronshadmi said:
rocketdodger and dlorde do you think that computational means that our brain is after all predictable?
Click to expand...
If you mean the observable functioning of our brain, i.e. our behaviour, then no, being computational doesn't necessarily imply predictability; there is a complexity problem - we can't know the initial state and connectivity, nor map all the inputs precisely enough to predict what it will do. There is also the chaos problem - parts of the brain apparently function chaotically, and it is often said (I'm not sure how accurately) that the whole brain operates on the edge of chaos; if there is any chaotic function involved, there will be inherent unpredictability.

Having said that, for obvious reasons our gross behaviour is fairly predictable most of the time.

Furthermore, do you think that our brain is a part of determinist reality, such that uncertainty, creativity, free will etc... are no more than illusions?
Click to expand...
I think QM has quashed the idea of a fundamentally deterministic reality, but if we assume that this is statistically averaged out to deterministic equivalence at the macro levels of cells and above, then I think one could take a deterministic viewpoint. If not, then we need to make some allowance for stochastic 'interference'.

But whether reality is deterministic or stochastic, uncertainty, creativity, and free will are abstractions, human constructs. They exist as interpretations we make of what we perceive of reality. Asking if such an abstraction is an illusion opens a semantic can of worms. Before we can answer that, we need to agree on a clear definition of what we mean by it. Good luck with 'free will' ;)

For example, let's assume that activity or inactivity of a given neuron is insignificant, is there a clear way to predict when the given neuron will change its current state?
Click to expand...
Neurons are complex and dynamic biological systems, so their responses are not entirely consistent, but if you know the initial state and environment well enough you can predict pretty well how and when it will respond to various stimuli, both in-vitro and in-vivo. A lot of work has been and is being done on this. Google is your friend here.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Hi rocketdodger,

I think that you have missed the idea of the paradigm-shift, in this case, which is:

Input is done during the "ongoing process", which is different than the attempt to include at once the entire environment as an input, before acting.

By this approach the considered system enables to change its decisions and activation according to real-time changes in the environment.

In other words, the system is opened to real-time changes, and enables to be effective, without waiting to infinite amount of input, before it starts to act.

This time please try to get the difference between interactive view of computation (which is the new paradigm) and a function-based transformation of an input to an output (which is the old paradigm):

"According to the interactive view of computation, interaction (com-
munication with the outside world) happens during the computation,
not before or after it. Hence, computation is an ongoing process rather
than a function-based transformation of an input to an output."
Click to expand...

The important point is that while one can simulate controlling a robot using computation, it's not possible to actually control it without interactivity. The program used to control a robot is not the same as one that is not time dependent. The implication is that there is functionality in the control of the robot which would not be present in a computation that takes an unrestricted amount of time to complete.

Time-dependence is not the same thing as order dependence.
 
dlorde said:
It's not a definition, it's a description, an explanation.
Click to expand...

And it leaves out something about what happens in the neuron. It's an abstraction. The question is - does the abstraction leave out anything important? Does it leave out functionality that is actually part of being human? I think that the example of the robot shows that it does. A neuron doesn't just perform a logical step - it does so within a particular timeframe. A model which ignore this is not complete.
 
Belz... said:
There you go again, labeling what you disagree with as a "faith". Typical.
Click to expand...

This is quite amusing, given the cavalcade of accusations that anyone who doesn't follow the computational model is trying to smuggle God in.
 
westprog said:
dlorde said:
... So what is one to make of ... robots controlled by computational processing?
Click to expand...
They aren't. Simple as that. They use a different model. So does all real-time processing - indeed, all computers, in practice. The Turing model is applicable to certain calculations performed on a computer.
Click to expand...

So all computers, in practice, are not computational?

Phew, well that was easy :boggled:
 
westprog said:
And it leaves out something about what happens in the neuron. It's an abstraction. The question is - does the abstraction leave out anything important? Does it leave out functionality that is actually part of being human? I think that the example of the robot shows that it does. A neuron doesn't just perform a logical step - it does so within a particular timeframe. A model which ignore this is not complete.
Click to expand...
:confused: You are familiar with real-time processing aren't you?
 
dlorde said:
If you mean the observable functioning of our brain, i.e. our behaviour, then no, being computational doesn't necessarily imply predictability; there is a complexity problem - we can't know the initial state and connectivity, nor map all the inputs precisely enough to predict what it will do. There is also the chaos problem - parts of the brain apparently function chaotically, and it is often said (I'm not sure how accurately) that the whole brain operates on the edge of chaos; if there is any chaotic function involved, there will be inherent unpredictability.

Having said that, for obvious reasons our gross behaviour is fairly predictable most of the time.

I think QM has quashed the idea of a fundamentally deterministic reality, but if we assume that this is statistically averaged out to deterministic equivalence at the macro levels of cells and above, then I think one could take a deterministic viewpoint. If not, then we need to make some allowance for stochastic 'interference'.

But whether reality is deterministic or stochastic, uncertainty, creativity, and free will are abstractions, human constructs. They exist as interpretations we make of what we perceive of reality. Asking if such an abstraction is an illusion opens a semantic can of worms. Before we can answer that, we need to agree on a clear definition of what we mean by it. Good luck with 'free will' ;)


Neurons are complex and dynamic biological systems, so their responses are not entirely consistent, but if you know the initial state and environment well enough you can predict pretty well how and when it will respond to various stimuli, both in-vitro and in-vivo. A lot of work has been and is being done on this. Google is your friend here.
Click to expand...
Can I understand from your reply that computation is not well-defined in terms of determinism?

Do you think that your reply is completely closed under computation?
 
Last edited:
keyfeatures said:
I'd say no. Can X even be defined without being able to define NOT-X? Such a contradiction appears at the heart of all distinction-making. How can you have a thing / not-thing when the relative complement is unknown (and therefore so is the initial set). Division becomes arbitrary. Logic circular.
Click to expand...
Do you think that your reply is completely closed under X?
 
dlorde said:
both in-vitro and in-vivo.
Click to expand...
Do you think that there can be a complete theory of consciousness in terms of in-vivo, or any theory is actually in-vitro since it is based on well-defined rules that are used as filters, which restrict in-vivo into in-vitro, in order to get understandable results?
 
Last edited:
Are human responses to the Wason selection task computational? They certainly aren't logical.
 
doronshadmi said:
Do you think that computation is completely deterministic?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily (NDTM). However, it is not clear that an NDTM implementation is feasible, although you could simulate one. So for practical purposes, lets assume it is deterministic. What now?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Do you think that there can be a complete theory of consciousness in terms of in-vivo, or any theory is actually in-vitro since it is based on well-defined rules that are used as filters, which restrict in-vivo into in-vitro, in order to get understandable results?
Click to expand...
Can there be a complete theory of consciousness? hard to say without a complete definition of consciousness. I can't make sense of the rest of your question.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom