• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Has consciousness been fully explained?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Third Eye Open said:
How much is 'a little' computer science? I know fairly well how computers work, but only have a vague knowledge about programming.
Click to expand...

The only code in the book is pseudocode, and there is actually very little of that.

It is more just an ability to understand logic and how algorithms flow.

That being said, I had to re-read portions of the book over and over before I could grok what is really happening in some of these algorithms.

But your interest has made me decide to try and find some easily understandable online sources where things might be explained in a way that doesn't require re-reading it 10 times.
 
blobru said:
Pretty sure you mean 'deifies' humans, or something like.

Though thanks for the chuckle :D (of the sort I provide on a regular basis). ;)
Click to expand...

Well, I was partially serious.

I don't think it is valid to assume that just because some other human is similar to you they probably experience the same conscious states as you.

People who think that don't understand the nature of neural networks. It just doesn't work that way.

I don't assume my consciousness is anything like yours, at all. Yeah we both see in color, and might have similar basic top level sensory perception networks, but everything else in our brain is 100% unique to us. The topography of our networks might be similar, but only like fingerprints are similar.

If I hooked up your hearing to my brain, the result is likely to be incomprehensible noise. If I hooked up your memories, it would be nonsense. If I tried to see with your visual cortex, it would be mayhem.

So I say people anthropomorphize humans because they make assumptions about how similar the experience of another human is to them.

As an example, think about language. French people think in French. They think in French. That is crazy to me -- they don't just replace the nouns and verbs with French equivalents, their entire sentence structure is different and their thoughts are consequently structured in a different order. And French isn't even that different from English. Think about the Asian languages! It is likely that the conscious experience of a Japanese man is very different than mine. Similar in some ways, yes, but not entirely the same either.

It isn't that computationalists assume too much. We assume only what is valid. Everyone else takes it too far in the other direction.
 
Last edited:
OK, I take back the gibe on your understanding of anthropomorphism. :o

I hope you are wrong about our differences outweighing our similarities, although I'd agree each individuals neural configurations are wildly dissimilar.

If the differences are as spectacular as you suggest, aren't the challenges of setting up a conscious AI even more problematic?

A biologic brain in a cyborg body seems to me a more promising approach.
 
Drachasor said:
Can we also agree that consciousness will not reside in the mere interface to a human body?

Or, let me put this another way. If we could attach cameras to a human brain for eyes (we actually CAN do this already), supply it with blood and such for energy, make a replacement voicebox, mouth, etc for it to speak (or an interface that translates such things for speakers), then would the human brain remain conscious outside of a body in your view?
Click to expand...

All the evidence indicates that the brain alone is responsible for the behavior. You can replace other body parts with artificial parts, and as long as the brain is getting the equivalent neural connections, that should not render it incapable of being conscious.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
I disagree vehemently. Addition still took place because it was defined so ahead of time by the person who programmed the algorithm. The person looking at it who does not understand the symbols simply does not understand that addition has taken place.
Click to expand...

If a car hits you, then a car hits you. That's what it means to be objectively real.

Addition has "taken place" on the calculator only if you concede that "addition" is an entirely symbolic process, not an objectively real one.

If you want to talk about objectively real addition, then you're talking about aggregating real objects to create larger groups of real objects.
 
westprog said:
No, I'm just pointing out that it hasn't been done, so any claims as to the way it will be done are close to guesswork. Certainly it isn't a matter of plugging a conductor into a circuit. I assume that it's possible, and since there's very strong incentives to make it work, I assume that it's very difficult and complicated.
Click to expand...

We do have research that have transmitted information along the optic nerve actually. I could look that up if you want (I was thinking about the spine when responding you so I forgot that like an idiot, which I guess is a lot harder). They are working on artificial eyes for the blind and I've looked into it a few times since my mother is blind (sadly her optic nerve is basically dead due to how she became blind, so she'll have to wait until the back-of-the-head concept gets worked out). We also have sensors that pick up things from nerves, used to activate artificial arms.

We definitely have excellent starting points. Refining the technology is basically the only difficulty. Part of it is that nerves are pretty darn small. I expect 20 or 40 years from now blindness will mostly be a thing of the past. Possibly sooner, but the people with unworking optic nerves pose extra difficulties.
 
rocketdodger said:
Ah, so you are going to stop parroting "is simulated water wet?" all over the thread?

Since by your own above admission, it is irrelevant in some cases?
Click to expand...

I really have no idea what you're on about here.
 
Hey, we're all friends here right?

No one is getting angry or upset about stuff, I hope.

After spending some time in the thread about the case for a historical Jesus, I feel like other threads I visit with some vigorous debating/discussion need group hugs.
 
rocketdodger said:
Ok. This is where I stop.

That statement is literally as stupid as saying "this thread is about engines, not internal-combustion."

Whatever piggy -- since you know literally nothing about consciousness by your own admission, yet respond to every discussion as if you are an expert on what is and is not relevant, then you should have fun making progress on this issue.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, you're the one making the unsupported equivalence between self-reference and consciousness.

I've asked you on several occasions to support that idea, and you've never done it.

You think that I know nothing about consciousness because I disagree with your unsupported assertions. Meanwhile, you are content to be generally ignorant of research on the only thing in the universe which we can be sure actually accomplishes the task -- the brain.
 
AlBell said:
What computationalists want to pretend is life including humans are just machines.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but the physicalists also admit that humans are machines. Organic machines, but machines nonetheless.
 
Piggy said:
On the contrary, you're the one making the unsupported equivalence between self-reference and consciousness.

I've asked you on several occasions to support that idea, and you've never done it.

You think that I know nothing about consciousness because I disagree with your unsupported assertions. Meanwhile, you are content to be generally ignorant of research on the only thing in the universe which we can be sure actually accomplishes the task -- the brain.
Click to expand...

there you go again Piggy, attacking peoples level of knowledge because they don't think youre right/ I have yet to see you be right about anything youve ever posted here at JREF, I have seen you insist you are right about everything, theres a difference there you know
You talk to your friends like that in real life ?
:rolleyes:

Please stay on topic and refrain from personalizing the argument. Thank you.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LibraryLady
 
Last edited by a moderator:
rocketdodger said:
I don't think it is valid to assume that just because some other human is similar to you they probably experience the same conscious states as you.

People who think that don't understand the nature of neural networks. It just doesn't work that way.
Click to expand...

Funny how you don't refer to biology or evolution, which is what you need to study if you want to understand consciousness, which is a biological phenomenon crafted by evolution.

Given the fact that we have similar brains which evolved in the same environments, it makes as much sense to doubt that we experience similar conscious states as it does to doubt that our livers work in similar ways.

You think you can understand consciousness by studying things which are not conscious, are not designed to be conscious, while ignoring the organic systems which do indeed cause consciousness.

Folly. Pure folly.
 
Marduk said:
there you go again Piggy, attacking peoples level of knowledge because they don't think youre right/ I have yet to see you be right about anything youve ever posted here at JREF, I have seen you insist you are right about everything, theres a difference there you know
You talk to your friends like that in real life ?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I actually have friends who are able to engage in rigorous debate.

And if you'd like to defend dodger's understanding of the brain, be my guest. You'll have a hard time digging up any references.

So do you want to snipe at me, or do you want to discuss consciousness?
 
Piggy said:
If a car hits you, then a car hits you. That's what it means to be objectively real.

Addition has "taken place" on the calculator only if you concede that "addition" is an entirely symbolic process, not an objectively real one.

If you want to talk about objectively real addition, then you're talking about aggregating real objects to create larger groups of real objects.
Click to expand...


A calculator or computer does something real in the real world. It follows the algorithm that we call adding sums if we tell it to do so even if we are not there to watch the result. It displays those numbers on a screen or a printout -- real things happening in the real world. We can describe what it does symbolically, but its actions are quite real.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom