Has consciousness been fully explained?

[Piggy]

I seem to remember someone saying, "Again, false. Neuroscientists point out that we don't know all the details of human consciousness, which is not something anyone here has claimed (well, me, but I was being deliberately provocative). But does the brain produce consciousness through computation carried out by neurons? Yes, everyone knows that."

But I can't remember who.

I also remember someone repeatedly insisting that we do know how consciousness is created.

Then, of course, following it up with vague references to self-referential information processing.

It's all gotta add up, my friend. Can't switch teams at whim.

 

[Piggy]

But Piggy, that is what they do. What else do you use your brain or your PC for?

Tell me what you mean by "process information" and we'll have something to talk about.

 

[Robin]

That's right. Or particular parts of the brain, anyway.

Well it's a semantic thing I guess.

You wouldn't say that running exists as a substance because legs have substance, or I wouldn't anyway. I would say that running is a thing that happens.

 

[Piggy]

What evidence?

If you're going to deny that you have a sensation of individual felt experience, then there's no rational conversation that can be had with you.

It's a bit like trying to have a conversation with a certain pet shop owner:

 

[Piggy]

Well it's a semantic thing I guess.

You wouldn't say that running exists as a substance because legs have substance, or I wouldn't anyway. I would say that running is a thing that happens.

As is Sofia. As I've said, it's a behavior, an event. And it's every bit as physically real as running or blinking or shivering.

 

[PixyMisa]

Here's how Ramachandran ends his essay:

Yeas, I read that. So what?

So much for your claim that we know how the brain generates consciousness.

Nope. We know how the brain produces consciousness. Ramachandran is talking about the details of the human mind, which are exceptionally complicated and still being mapped to brain function.

I also remember someone repeatedly insisting that we do know how consciousness is created.

Then, of course, following it up with vague references to self-referential information processing.

If by vague you mean precise and explicit, then (a) you need a new dictionary and (b) yes.

It's all gotta add up, my friend. Can't switch teams at whim.

It does, and I'm not.

 

[Piggy]

We know how the brain produces consciousness.

Then cite it, brother. Show me an explanation of how the brain produces consciousness. Step by step.

 

[Piggy]

If by vague you mean precise and explicit, then (a) you need a new dictionary and (b) yes.

No, by "vague" I mean pseudo-explanations like "We know what makes a car run -- metal parts."

 

[PixyMisa]

Then provide me with that basic understanding.

I just did.

Then cite them.

I just did.

Then cite everyone.

I just did.

You can't seriously be citing GEB!

I just did.

FWIW, Steven Pinker, for one, disagrees with you that neural networks are equivalent to the brain.

So? He's wrong. Church-Turing thesis. It proves mathematically that he's wrong. It is a mathematical fact that anything the brain can do, an artificial neural network can do, and anything an artificial neural network can do, a stored-program computer can do. Or a Turing machine, or lambda calculus, or recursion, or a whole list of other computational methods. All mathematically identical.

All I've asked you to do is to tell me what you mean by "information processing" and "computation". Would you please do that.

I just did.

 

[Piggy]

I just did.

You're sounding a lot like Interesting Ian.

 

[Piggy]

So? He's wrong. Church-Turing thesis. It proves mathematically that he's wrong. It is a mathematical fact that anything the brain can do, an artificial neural network can do, and anything an artificial neural network can do, a stored-program computer can do. Or a Turing machine, or lambda calculus, or recursion, or a whole list of other computational methods. All mathematically identical.

Assertions != explanations.

 

[PixyMisa]

It's very difficult to make my head hurt.

Really? Then read the articles I just linked before you post here again. They contain the explanation you keep demanding. I've already explained it in layman's terms, but you have counterfactual beliefs stuck in your brain that you need to dislodge, and it appears the only way to do that is for you to work through the details.

Searches are easy to do.

I did no searches. Those are the fundamental terms of the subject - what computation is, what it means for something to be effectively computable, the Church-Turing thesis proving that all known classes of computation beyond a certain power are mathematically equivalent, a result of a mathematical significance nearly as great as Godel's theorems.

I'm asking you to explain what you mean by the terms.

I have, repeatedly. Since you refuse to accept - or, it would seem, even consider - my explanations, I've referred you to an online resource providing considerable further detail.

Read it.

And I don't recall you giving an explanation in layman's terms upthread, so perhaps you could repeat it for me.

I've given it several times, so honestly, you can't have been reading my posts. Why then should I continue responding to you?

But here goes:

Computation is the manipulation of symbolic representations, and the switching of further actions based on the results of the manipulation.

You might ask "symbolic representations of what"? The answer is: Of anything.

This is what the brain does, Piggy. It's all symbols. Photons strike your retina and are represented as electrical signals in the optic nerve. These signals pass through to the primary visual cortext which produces a one-to-one spatial map in neurons of the visual field. Indeed, this map is so direct and precise that we can examine it with an FMRI and read the text you are looking at.

Though you have to sit pretty still for that to work...


Reference for further reading. I'm not going to write it all out for you.

Also, Professor Wolfe - the guy who gives those excellent MIT lecures - is a visual perception researcher, so if you're interested in that stuff the lectures will be of particular, um, interest. But I recommend them very highly regardless.

 

[PixyMisa]

Assertions != explanations.

I've explained. Read the articles I linked to, Piggy. They contain a more detailed explanation of the same thing.

I'm not going to spoon-feed you. I've already given you the links. Read them.

 

[PixyMisa]

As is Sofia. As I've said, it's a behavior, an event. And it's every bit as physically real as running or blinking or shivering.

That's what I said. (Well, not an event, but a process.)

You seem to have a problem with that. This is a deep inconsistency on your part.

 

[PixyMisa]

Anyway, Piggy, I've answered your question enough times. Read those Wikipedia articles for more information. Listen to those MIT lectures; they're superb. Read Godel, Escher, Bach, which provides a deeper and more gradual explanation of computation than I or Wikipedia have time to give you.

Then come back and we can talk.

 

[PixyMisa]

Well it's a semantic thing I guess.

You wouldn't say that running exists as a substance because legs have substance, or I wouldn't anyway. I would say that running is a thing that happens.

At least think is a verb. It's a shame English has no simple, commonplace verb relating to consciousness.

 

[!Kaggen]

The idea of consciousness being something that happens (a type of verb), like running or thinking is where your hypothesis has cracks.

Things that happen are phenomenological events, which we interpret as "happening" through our direct contribution as humans. That contribution is our consciousness.
There may be a world out there made of substance (a metaphysical assumption), but nothing happens (a phenomenological event) without an interpreter .

This is were the problem lies with interpreting consciousness as a "happening". It is a tautology.

This is why consciousness is the only thing in the world which is not reducible to atomic facts which are bound by the laws of logic. Consciousness can only be explained using consciousness. It can be described, but not reduced. It is not metaphysical.

 

[PixyMisa]

The idea of consciousness being something that happens (a type of verb), like running or thinking is where your hypothesis has cracks.

Ooookay...

Things that happen are phenomenological events

Things that happen, happen.

which we interpret as "happening" through our direct contribution as humans.

Which we sense and represent symbolically in our brains.

That contribution is our consciousness.

Which is a process of reflective symbolic manipulation.

There may be a world out there made of substance (a metaphysical assumption), but nothing happens (a phenomenological event) without an interpreter .

That's semantically null.

This is were the problem lies with interpreting consciousness as a "happening". It is a tautology.

Consciousness is not a "happening". It's a process.

This is why consciousness is the only thing in the world which is not reducible to atomic facts which are bound by the laws of logic.

Evidence please.

Consciousness can only be explained using consciousness. It can be described, but not reduced.

How can it be described if not in terms of simpler processes?

It is not metaphysical.

Correct. It's physical. That is rather the point.

 

[westprog]

Oh, it's been made before on this forum. However, it's a hopeless mess: Computers could have subjective experience because they use self-referential information processing; and consciousness is self-referential information processing; which we know because people who study computers (but not the brain) say that it is; and although the brain is the only thing we know for sure can produce consciousness (and no one studying the brain claims to know how it does that) it's sufficient to study computers and neural networks as a substitute because they, too, can potentially be conscious; because they use self-referential information processing....

Don't forget switches! Switches are where the magic lies. They're the building blocks of SRIP.

 

[westprog]

Assertions != explanations.

We went through Church-Turing before. What Pixy says about Church-Turing, and what the articles actually say. We could go through the entire thread, but at least we can short-circuit this one.