Has consciousness been fully explained?

[rocketdodger]

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.

Been there, done that. Way ahead of you already.

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.

Your actual level of understanding is betrayed by the fact that you think the function of the brain and the function of the liver is analagous in any way.

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.

It is laughable that you think A.I. researchers "ignore the organic systems which do indeed cause consciousness."

And I know you think you are the resident expert on "actual brain research" but in fact I doubt an analysis of posting history would confirm that. On the contrary I would put money on Pixy and I both citing more varying "actual brain" research than you, even if informally. In particular, your entire repetoire seems to consist of Marvin (or whatever his name is) and a few other people with parts of their brain's missing. Have you brought up any research on vision? Have you brought up any research on neuron biology? Have you brought up any research on memory? Have you brought up any research on animals?

Do you even know what the EEGs and MRIs of the people in your precious research looked like? How can you accuse people of "ignoring" research when your own familiarity is limited to what you can read on a public access abstract?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Don't think so just trying to point out that description depends on what is normative: is something true, is it false, is it relevant or not, and so on. Being able to pursue goals depends on this.

Humans achieve this through a practice of some sort. Over time. I don't see how an ability to meaningfully judge can be incorporated into an algorithm.

Ah, thanks, now I understand. Well, we don't put things like that into our algorithms now because we use machines as tools and we want them to do very defined activities. We don't want to program them with anything, for want of a better term, fuzzy. We don't generally want a machine to decide which goal it should pursue -- we define the goal.

I don't see a barrier to programming in such a thing. I think the original origin would be natural selection; it certainly sets goals for organisms; we learn how use what we have been endowed with to set new goals, but I think there is an originary goal programmed into us by nature.

 

[rocketdodger]

My question is how is making normative choices formalizable?

Oh I see what you mean.

The answer -- there is no such thing as a "real" normative choice, unless you assume apriori that human normative choices are somehow fundamentally different than the rest of the universe.

Think about it -- what kind of normative choices do people make? The truth of a statement? What is a statement? What is truth?

Saying "1 + 1 == 2 is true," what is really going on there?

Well, we have learned what all those symbols mean, first of all. And we parse that statement, then see that the meaning of the symbols agrees -- or rather, is consistent -- with what we have learned about the world. So we say it is a "true" statement.

But fundamentally all we are saying is that some input, after processing, agrees with our learned memory. In other words, a formal description of a human normative choice would just be a whole bunch of math describing the relationships between a particular human, their memory, their current state, their current environment, etc.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

There has to be a person involved. But I don't see how the intentions of the person imbue the calculator with intentionality or meaning.

The program provides an intentional algorithm that the computer carries out. If it is set in motion, calculating, then it will continue to caculate. This differs a dropped abacus because there was no intention to calculate certain numbers to arrive at a particular sum.

Meaning, of the sort you 'mean', requires an observer. There is intention with the computer -- imparted by the programmer -- but meaning with neither until the 'answer' is observed.

The computer still adds (keeps sums) but does not tell sums if there is no one to interpret, just as a watch keeps time but does not tell time if there is no one to watch. The mechanical process, defined by the originator of the device, will continue.

You have to define addition as the meaningful intentional following of a set algorithm to produce a sum for your argument to hold. I am not aware that that is the definition of addition. People don't have to understand the output for it to be addition. Someone understanding the output is "understanding addition"; it is not addition.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

No, consciousness threads are like Hammer Dracula films. They just stop, then restart a few months later with exactly the same plot.

 

[rocketdodger]

How do you formalize knowing what linguistic practice will tell you: when a person is making a meaningful utterance or mere noise noise?

Without that you can't know what to include in the grammar structure.

Correct -- it has to either be learned by the system, or the system needs to have it designed into it (including by evolution, although saying evolution "designs" is horrible semantics but *meh* )

 

[rocketdodger]

Okay. You mean universalize experience based on shared human nature, so to speak. I don't think that's a bad assumption, as long as formal similarities in 'output' [experience] don't obscure the infinite set of neural pathways which may have led there. Similarities define a species; differences define the individual.

Yet I think most people are unfamiliar with just how different two brains actually are when it comes to specific connections.

It's an interesting thought-experiment. I agree it would initially be noisy. But 'noise' itself is informative ("there's something there -- what?"). So the nervous system, assuming it didn't go comatose from shock, might begin to talk back randomly until it decoded the unfamiliar signals, like being reborn... reconceived even? Stuff of sci-fi.

No, stuff of the near future, and very important.

When research on stem cells finally pays off in a neural context, and we can regrow damaged parts of our nervous system, our brains are going to actually be doing this. And hopefully it will happen soon, before we all get old and start fading !!

That's certainly the key to learning another language: semantics emerge from syntax. One reason these consciousness debates drag on and on could be the translation of the semantics of one view into the syntax of the other creates a lot of noise, and random reinterpretation. Stuff of philosophy.

Yes, I am amazed that the whole "simulation vs. model vs. reality" nonsense has gone on as long as it has, given that any of us could clear it up in a face to face talk using a chalkboard.

 

[!Kaggen]

I'd promised Pixy last year that I'd read a copy of GEB but never had the time to. Then, outta the blue, some girl I've been going out with decided give it to me as a b-day gift a few weeks ago. Now I'm diggin into it to see the wutz wut. Gonna see what I can take from it

Yeah, I have been making a door stopper out of it for about 15 years now.
Works well when the wind is not a blowin too hard.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Yeah, I have been making a door stopper out of it for about 15 years now.
Works well when the wind is not a blowin too hard.

I never finished reading it either.

 

[!Kaggen]

Hehe.

The past year has been reeeally busy and interesting. Between school, work, my mom going thru chemo, and attempts to maintain a social life thru it all I haven't had nearly as much time or interest in playing on the forums. Now the semester is starting to wind down and I figured I'd give my thoughts a stretch again

Hope your mom is doing alright now, welcome back.

 

[!Kaggen]

I never finished reading it either.

Of course not its a strange loop.
Makes you aware that its around but never goes anywhere in particular.

 

[Frank Newgent]

My question is how is making normative choices formalizable?

Oh I see what you mean.

The answer -- there is no such thing as a "real" normative choice, unless you assume apriori that human normative choices are somehow fundamentally different than the rest of the universe.

Think about it -- what kind of normative choices do people make? The truth of a statement? What is a statement? What is truth?

Saying "1 + 1 == 2 is true," what is really going on there?

Well, we have learned what all those symbols mean, first of all. And we parse that statement, then see that the meaning of the symbols agrees -- or rather, is consistent -- with what we have learned about the world. So we say it is a "true" statement.

True because 1+1=2 is axiomatic. If there were an opposite to what is making a normative choice what is taken for granted would be it.

But fundamentally all we are saying is that some input, after processing, agrees with our learned memory. In other words, a formal description of a human normative choice would just be a whole bunch of math describing the relationships between a particular human, their memory, their current state, their current environment, etc.

Sorry RD but as 1+1=2 is irrelevant to the question your last paragraph is best imterpreted as a description of vaporware.

 

[rocketdodger]

True because 1+1=2 is axiomatic. If there were an opposite to what is making a normative choice what is taken for granted would be it.

There is no such thing as a qualitatively normative choice.

When the statement "John ought to buy coco puffs" is reduced to its component meanings, it becomes apparent that it is a subjective statement about the objective world that an observer can either agree with or disagree with. It is part of an axiomatic system -- what is, is, what isn't, isn't.

Where do you think norms come from, Frank?

You are making a normative choice. What do you expect to be involved in that? Your past? Sure. Your current state? Sure. Some randomness? Sure. What else? The three things I listed are mathematically describable and thus can be reduced to axioms and the successive application of rules. What else would you want to factor into your decision?

This is encroaching on the free will discussion.

Also, the statement 1 + 1 == 2 is not "taken for granted" in the sense you think it is. For example, could you "take for granted" the equivalent statement written in Chinese characters? Of course not, unless you read and understand Chinese. You still need to extract meaning from what you see in front of you. In that sense all statements are the same. Then you need to check the meaning against your memory I.E. make sure it is consistent with what you know. In that sense all statements are also the same -- at some point your mind does a consistency check every time you evaluate the subjective "truth" of anything. Do you find girl X pretty? If you do, there is a reason for it. Your brain doesn't just like or dislike something for no reason at all.

 

[AkuManiMani]

That's certainly the key to learning another language: semantics emerge from syntax. One reason these consciousness debates drag on and on could be the translation of the semantics of one view into the syntax of the other creates a lot of noise, and random reinterpretation. Stuff of philosophy.

I think part of it comes from genuine misconceptions and misunderstanding. The rest of it comes from people being so comfortable with their own world views that they shut out any propositions that appear to threaten them.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Don't think so just trying to point out that description depends on what is normative: is something true, is it false, is it relevant or not, and so on. Being able to pursue goals depends on this.

Humans achieve this through a practice of some sort. Over time. I don't see how an ability to meaningfully judge can be incorporated into an algorithm.

Ah, thanks, now I understand. Well, we don't put things like that into our algorithms now because we use machines as tools and we want them to do very defined activities. We don't want to program them with anything, for want of a better term, fuzzy. We don't generally want a machine to decide which goal it should pursue -- we define the goal.

I don't see a barrier to programming in such a thing. I think the original origin would be natural selection; it certainly sets goals for organisms; we learn how use what we have been endowed with to set new goals, but I think there is an originary goal programmed into us by nature.

You make it sound as though this has all been accomplished already and that the option of building a fully conscious machine capable of making its own choices has been rejected because we want to remain in control.

I find that to be kind of a silly answer.

 

[AlBell]

You are making a normative choice. What do you expect to be involved in that? Your past? Sure. Your current state? Sure. Some randomness? Sure. What else? The three things I listed are mathematically describable and thus can be reduced to axioms and the successive application of rules. What else would you want to factor into your decision?

This is encroaching on the free will discussion.

Will your conscious simulation have free will?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

You make it sound as though this has all been accomplished already and that the option of building a fully conscious machine capable of making its own choices has been rejected because we want to remain in control.

I find that to be kind of a silly answer.

No, not at all. My point is that I don't think there is an absolute barrier to it.

We are far, far away from being able to do it ourselves. We are just too ignorant.

 

[AkuManiMani]

You make it sound as though this has all been accomplished already and that the option of building a fully conscious machine capable of making its own choices has been rejected because we want to remain in control.

I find that to be kind of a silly answer.

There isn't going to be any real progress made in that regard so long as people continue to insist on going off of fruitless ontological assumptions. They're essentially trying to draw blood from an onion and a priori rejecting any suggestion that they're barking up the wrong tree :-X

 

[AkuManiMani]

Will your conscious simulation have free will?

Sure, so long as they use a convenient definition of "free will" that applies to their "conscious" simulation

 

[Frank Newgent]

There is no such thing as a qualitatively normative choice.

When the statement "John ought to buy coco puffs" is reduced to its component meanings, it becomes apparent that it is a subjective statement about the objective world that an observer can either agree with or disagree with. It is part of an axiomatic system -- what is, is, what isn't, isn't.

Where do you think norms come from, Frank?

You are making a normative choice. What do you expect to be involved in that? Your past? Sure. Your current state? Sure. Some randomness? Sure. What else? The three things I listed are mathematically describable and thus can be reduced to axioms and the successive application of rules. What else would you want to factor into your decision?

This is encroaching on the free will discussion.

Also, the statement 1 + 1 == 2 is not "taken for granted" in the sense you think it is. For example, could you "take for granted" the equivalent statement written in Chinese characters? Of course not, unless you read and understand Chinese. You still need to extract meaning from what you see in front of you. In that sense all statements are the same. Then you need to check the meaning against your memory I.E. make sure it is consistent with what you know. In that sense all statements are also the same -- at some point your mind does a consistency check every time you evaluate the subjective "truth" of anything. Do you find girl X pretty? If you do, there is a reason for it. Your brain doesn't just like or dislike something for no reason at all.

I think you are confusing what is mere opinion with what is normative choice.

That the issue concerns personal preferences about breakfast cereal is a straw man.