Explain consciousness to the layman.

[keyfeatures]

The hive mind.

And my personal poetic response.

 

[Mr. Scott]

I think all this talk of what a Turing Machine and what it isn't, in this context is nuts, but I'll participate anyway.

Let's start with wiki's opening on the subject:

A Turing machine is a device that manipulates symbols on a strip of tape according to a table of rules. Despite its simplicity, a Turing machine can be adapted to simulate the logic of any computer algorithm, and is particularly useful in explaining the functions of a CPU inside a computer.

Just because the Turing Machine model is succinct does no imply it is confined. It is universal.

My most useful model of computation is that every computer has three parts: Input, process, and output. A Turing Machin has a problem to solve on it's tape, it solves it, and writes it to the tape. That's what happens in computers, though the input and output do not have to be tapes.

All computers are nested versions of this. Interactive computers repeat processes continuously on incoming inputs and feed outputs.

A human brain takes input from the senses, processes it, and outputs to the muscles, glands...Continuously and repeatedly.

Sometimes output is to memory, and input is from memory. Sometimes inborn impulses, instincts programmed in the genes, are on the virtual input tape.

It's still, when you break down the nested layers, Turing Machines.

Neurons accept inputs, process them, and issue outputs. The TM model holds.

It's a silly argument. Your turn.

 

[Belz...]

No, I called your willingness to accept the verdict of people you consider to be experts acting on faith. What would you call it?

Reason. Whose verdict should I accept ? Yours ?

 

[westprog]

Reason. Whose verdict should I accept ? Yours ?

I would hope that you would judge from the arguments.

 

[westprog]

I think all this talk of what a Turing Machine and what it isn't, in this context is nuts, but I'll participate anyway.

Let's start with wiki's opening on the subject:



Just because the Turing Machine model is succinct does no imply it is confined. It is universal.

My most useful model of computation is that every computer has three parts: Input, process, and output. A Turing Machin has a problem to solve on it's tape, it solves it, and writes it to the tape. That's what happens in computers, though the input and output do not have to be tapes.

All computers are nested versions of this. Interactive computers repeat processes continuously on incoming inputs and feed outputs.

A human brain takes input from the senses, processes it, and outputs to the muscles, glands...Continuously and repeatedly.

Sometimes output is to memory, and input is from memory. Sometimes inborn impulses, instincts programmed in the genes, are on the virtual input tape.

It's still, when you break down the nested layers, Turing Machines.

Neurons accept inputs, process them, and issue outputs. The TM model holds.

It's a silly argument. Your turn.

You cannot specify what happens in the nervous system, or the purpose of the operations of the nervous system, without time dependency - which is something entirely absent from the Turing model. Order and timing are different things.

If you try to write real time programs according to the Turing model - using some form of polling in a loop, usually - then you can sometimes get the thing to work, but not reliably - and multiple interacting events can never be reliably handled. More importantly, it's not a good way to describe what you want to happen.

 

[Belz...]

I would hope that you would judge from the arguments.

I prefer the evidence, thank you very much.

 

[dlorde]

You wrote: "So for practical purposes, lets assume it is deterministic."

Why should we assume it is deterministic in order to deal with it?

I thought I'd explained that. But, meh, never mind.

 

[rocketdodger]

Time-dependence is not the same thing as order dependence.

If you can show us a single case -- just one single case -- where time dependence is not also order dependence, then we will believe you.

 

[rocketdodger]

If you try to write real time programs according to the Turing model - using some form of polling in a loop, usually - then you can sometimes get the thing to work, but not reliably - and multiple interacting events can never be reliably handled.

Wrong.

Case in point, the guys who write operating systems are pretty good at getting multiple interacting events to be handled reliably.

More importantly, it's not a good way to describe what you want to happen.

That depends. I have heard a few physicists say that at a fundamental level the universe effectively operates according to discrete time intervals and that anything happening within the same interval effectively happens simultaneously.

Are you saying they are wrong?

 

[rocketdodger]

rocketdodger and dlorde do you think that computational means that our brain is after all predictable?

Yes. However to do so fully would require an amazing amount of computation, so the question is effectively uninteresting to me.

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?

Yes. But I wouldn't say they are illusions, I would say they are just not what many people think they are.

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?

If you have information about the state of all the other neurons, and any other relevant stuff like glial cells or blood chemistry, then yes absolutely.

 

[rocketdodger]

Order and timing are different things.

Well, lets just think about it a little.

Can you give me an interval of time that isn't a sequence of events?

One minute -- nope, that is a sequence of 60 seconds.
One second -- nope, that is a sequence of milliseconds.
One < whatever > -- nope, that is a sequence of < something smaller >.

Given that we define the worldwide time standards according to a sequence of vibrations of atoms, I don't see how you can argue that order and timing are different things.

 

[rocketdodger]

It's a silly argument. Your turn.

I wouldn't even bother. The cognitive dissonance is in full effect here.

 

[doronshadmi]

I thought I'd explained that. But, meh, never mind.

Here is your explanation: "However, it is not clear that an NDTM implementation is feasible, although you could simulate one."

Who said that uncertainty and/or redundancy are not subjects for research "as they are" (in this case any attempt to clarify them actually eliminate their properties. Some analogy: you can't research the natural life of night creatures by using a spotlight).

Maybe this analogy can help you to understand http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8240333&postcount=4908, which claims that any attempt to define a given subject actually restricts its properties into in-vitro. Please be aware that I am using the term in-vitro in order to describe an isolated researched subject, and the term in-vivo in order to describe a non-isolated researched subject (where in-vitro or in-vivo are not necessarily related to living things).

Here is a corrected version of my previous post on this subject:

In my opinion healthy consciousness is not limited to any particular case of pros and cons, which enables it to still act at any degree of uncertainty and\or redundancy, as long as it is still "in one piece".

Furthermore, in my opinion, consciousness' development is measured by its ability be an unbroken linkage among simplicity and complexity, under situations (abstract of physical) that are characterized by uncertainty and\or redundancy, where uncertainty and\or redundancy are taken "as they are" (they are not translated into some clear state in order to be research-able).

 

[dlorde]

Who said that uncertainty and/or redundancy are not subjects for research "as they are"

I have no idea - who?

... any attempt to define a given subject actually restricts its properties into in-vitro.

Suppose one defines the 'given subject' in terms of its interaction with its in-vivo environment, i.e. a functional definition?

 

[doronshadmi]

I have no idea - who?


Suppose one defines the 'given subject' in terms of its interaction with its in-vivo environment, i.e. a functional definition?

Do you think that it is possible to actually define in-vivo environment such that no factor is excluded? (please be aware of the fact that if any factor is excluded, then we do not actually deal with in-vivo environment).

 

[Mr. Scott]

You cannot specify what happens in the nervous system, or the purpose of the operations of the nervous system, without time dependency - which is something entirely absent from the Turing model. Order and timing are different things.

If you try to write real time programs according to the Turing model - using some form of polling in a loop, usually - then you can sometimes get the thing to work, but not reliably - and multiple interacting events can never be reliably handled. More importantly, it's not a good way to describe what you want to happen.

If you add timing to the Turing model you still have a Turing model. What's the big deal?

 

[Piggy]

Been gone for a long while. Surprised this thread is still going on, actually.

And the fact that it's back to Turing machines is hilarious.

Good thing that the folks who actually study consciousness don't bother with that silliness.

Still got some posts in the can, but real life intervenes sometimes.

I do want to reply to a post on page 100 before I do anything else, tho.

You know, the funny thing abou the informationists is that they demand the impossible from information.

They want it to be simultaneously independent of physics AND to not require an observer.

How that' possible, they can't say, but they're just so doggone SURE it must be true!

No coherent theories, no evidence for their beliefs, a definition of "information" that reeks of theology, disdain for the actual study of consciousness, even more disdain for the laws of physics, absolutely zero accomplishments in creating consciousness... and yet they hijack just about every thread on the topic with their nonsense.

Keep up the good fight, informationists! If you repeat it long enough and loud enough, then it'll come true! Just like if you make a representation detailed enough, it'll become real!

Ah, the Pinocchio theory of reality.

 

[dlorde]

Do you think that it is possible to actually define in-vivo environment such that no factor is excluded? (please be aware of the fact that if any factor is excluded, then we do not actually deal with in-vivo environment).

What matters is relevant factors. That's what experimental design is all about.

 

[rocketdodger]

Been gone for a long while. Surprised this thread is still going on, actually.

And the fact that it's back to Turing machines is hilarious.

Good thing that the folks who actually study consciousness don't bother with that silliness.

Still got some posts in the can, but real life intervenes sometimes.

I do want to reply to a post on page 100 before I do anything else, tho.

You know, the funny thing abou the informationists is that they demand the impossible from information.

They want it to be simultaneously independent of physics AND to not require an observer.

How that' possible, they can't say, but they're just so doggone SURE it must be true!

No coherent theories, no evidence for their beliefs, a definition of "information" that reeks of theology, disdain for the actual study of consciousness, even more disdain for the laws of physics, absolutely zero accomplishments in creating consciousness... and yet they hijack just about every thread on the topic with their nonsense.

Keep up the good fight, informationists! If you repeat it long enough and loud enough, then it'll come true! Just like if you make a representation detailed enough, it'll become real!

Ah, the Pinocchio theory of reality.

Nice drive by.

 

[westprog]

If you add timing to the Turing model you still have a Turing model. What's the big deal?

No, of course you don't. You can't just add things you want into a model and have it remain the same thing. The Turing model isn't physical - it's a way to think about computation. The essence of the Turing model is that you can do the computation at any speed, and always get the identical result. That's clearly not the case with the human nervous system, where if you don't deal with issues in a given time, total disastrous failure results.

It's certainly possible to simulate a time-dependent system with a Turing computational system, but that doesn't mean that they are the same thing.