Has consciousness been fully explained?

[westprog]

The trouble here is that a Turing machine can't send brain waves across a field of neurons.

Look, you've already had your claims about Turing machines destroyed. Why are you still on about this?

If you want to claim that you can create consciousness by "running the logic", then you're going to have to explain how you get a bodily function as the solution to a calculation.

Got any ideas?

Pixy hasn't engaged with any of the substantive points for a long time. It's all SRIP, Church-Turing, this has been proven beyond doubt, read these links and come back when you BELIEVE. It's more like a creationism thread than philosophy or science. If you don't accept the True Way, then you are guilty of dualism. I've stopped dealing directly with him because he hasn't answered any of these issues at any stage. There's plenty of interesting stuff to discuss without getting caught up in endless go-nowhere arguments.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Well, it's already been offered.

I think what WP and I are tired of is the demand for some strict scientific definition, when we know that we don't yet have one.

But we don't need one. We can "point to the cat" on this one.

Several definitions have been offered, the problem is the proponent of each definition is rambling on about their own definiton and ignoring the others. PixyMisa's definition is at least clear and consistent, yours seems to be 'Yeah, but no, but everyone knows what I mean!' which is unsatisfactory for a discussion.

The trouble here is that a Turing machine can't send brain waves across a field of neurons.

Look, you've already had your claims about Turing machines destroyed. Why are you still on about this?

If you want to claim that you can create consciousness by "running the logic", then you're going to have to explain how you get a bodily function as the solution to a calculation.

Got any ideas?

Can someone link me to the posts where PixyMisa's interpretation of the Church-Turing thesis was destroyed? All I've seen so far is it being denied. The closest to an argument for this was someone knew a bloke who met Church in the pub 50 years ago and he said it was wrong. I'm not sure I'm qualified to understand the refutation, but I'd like to read it.

 

[PixyMisa]

The trouble here is that a Turing machine can't send brain waves across a field of neurons.

Dualism fail.

Look, you've already had your claims about Turing machines destroyed.

Actually, you haven't even addressed the facts about Turing machines.

Why are you still on about this?

Because you have utterly failed to grasp the concept.

If you want to claim that you can create consciousness by "running the logic", then you're going to have to explain how you get a bodily function as the solution to a calculation.

Dualism fail.

Got any ideas?

Read Godel, Escher, Bach.

 

[!Kaggen]

That's the thing about being human we first need to convince ourselves no matter how we are defined.

Computers on the other hand......they tend to agree with how they are defined

 

[westprog]

Huh, I just thought of something. No one is saying that a simulation of a person would be conscious, the computer running the simulation would be. I thought this would be obvious, but maybe not. Anyway, that is what I have been claiming at least. So when you keep saying that abstractions can't be conscious I guess I agree, but the computer is not an abstraction.

So what part of the computer will be conscious? The processor? The RAM? The disc drive? The power supply? All of the processor or just the registers? Is the computer conscious between instructions?

In the case of the paper-and-pen implementation, what is conscious then? The paper?

 

[westprog]

Several definitions have been offered, the problem is the proponent of each definition is rambling on about their own definiton and ignoring the others. PixyMisa's definition is at least clear and consistent, yours seems to be 'Yeah, but no, but everyone knows what I mean!' which is unsatisfactory for a discussion.

Pixy's definition is not a definition - it's an assertion and an explanation. Saying that consciousness is SRIP says nothing about the nature of consciousness.

It might be unsatisfactory that nobody has managed to define consciousness, but that's the state of play at the moment. And yes, everyone does know what we mean.

I could define consciousness as being roast duck with orange sauce, and we both know that that would be a consistent and entirely wrong definition. There's no point in producing wrong definitions just for the sake of it.

Can someone link me to the posts where PixyMisa's interpretation of the Church-Turing thesis was destroyed? All I've seen so far is it being denied. The closest to an argument for this was someone knew a bloke who met Church in the pub 50 years ago and he said it was wrong. I'm not sure I'm qualified to understand the refutation, but I'd like to read it.

The erroneous interpretations of Church-Turing.

This article is a fairly thorough-going examination of what CT says, and the specific part of the article I've linked to demolishes all the extravagant claims that misinterpret what it actually means.

Yet it is certainly possible that psychology will find the need to employ models of human cognition that transcend Turing machines

More importantly - for all that PM has claimed that his interpretation is based on scientific proof, his interpretation doesn't seem to be supported anywhere. In particular, his vague use of the word "powerful" and the claim that CT proves that a Turing machine can do anything that a brain can do is not backed up by the sources which he has cited.

That's not to say that his view that the Turing model of computation is sufficient to explain consciousness isn't believed by anyone else - it's just that nobody else seems to be expressing that viewpoint in the same way.

 

[!Kaggen]

What seems to be transpiring is that the question of the OP can be interpreted two ways.

This is due to the fact that consciousness is a subjective experience with an objective origin.

There are "explanations of consciousness" which relate to experience and language usage and benefit from ongoing discussion.

Then there are "explanations of consciousness" which relate to knowledge about how consciousness originates which require the formulation of hypotheses/concepts and the testing thereof.

Perhaps we should split this thread into a theory of the origin of consciousness thread in SMMT and a discussion about consciousness as an experience thread in R&P.

I think we can benefit from both discussions if we talk too each other rather than past each other.

As Wittgenstein said the aim of Philosophy was not natural science or history but "to shew the fly out of the fly-bottle".

 

[Dancing David]

That's no Universe, buddy. It's just a mechanical box and some tape.

How about string? I am big on string.

 

[Dancing David]

The trouble here is that a Turing machine can't send brain waves across a field of neurons.

As long as we aknowledge the 'brain waves' are biochemical in nature and that the attention in the study you mentioned is biochemical in nature, I am down with that.

I do not think you are one of the 'electrical brain' people I just always assert this point.

 

[Dancing David]

That's the thing about being human we first need to convince ourselves no matter how we are defined.

Computers on the other hand......they tend to agree with how they are defined

Only sort of they are cantankerous beasts at time.

 

[Third Eye Open]

So what part of the computer will be conscious? The processor? The RAM? The disc drive? The power supply? All of the processor or just the registers? Is the computer conscious between instructions?

In the case of the paper-and-pen implementation, what is conscious then? The paper?

What part of your brain is conscious? The medula? The hypothalamus? The spinal cord? Your eyes? The hippocampus?

In the case of a brain made of matter, what is conscious then, the atoms?

Quit playing this game.

 

[!Kaggen]

What part of your brain is conscious? The medula? The hypothalamus? The spinal cord? Your eyes? The hippocampus?

In the case of a brain made of matter, what is conscious then, the atoms?

Quit playing this game.

But it is a game, a language game and whether you like it or not you're stuck in it too.

 

[AlBell]

What part of your brain is conscious? The medula? The hypothalamus? The spinal cord? Your eyes? The hippocampus?

In the case of a brain made of matter, what is conscious then, the atoms?

Quit playing this game.

To make the game even more fun, what's your answer to your questions?

If it's other than 'unknown', prove it.

 

[Piggy]

Several definitions have been offered, the problem is the proponent of each definition is rambling on about their own definiton and ignoring the others. PixyMisa's definition is at least clear and consistent, yours seems to be 'Yeah, but no, but everyone knows what I mean!' which is unsatisfactory for a discussion.

PM's definition is problematic because it is false.

My definition is every bit as clear as "That cat right there".

If you have a problem with my definition, then you need to tell me whether you are aware of something while you're asleep and not dreaming, or else if you're not ever aware of anything at all.

You also need to explain Marvin and the deep brain probe results.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

PM's definition is problematic because it is false.

My definition is every bit as clear as "That cat right there".

If you have a problem with my definition, then you need to tell me whether you are aware of something while you're asleep and not dreaming, or else if you're not ever aware of anything at all.

You also need to explain Marvin and the deep brain probe results.

I'm not sure a definition can be false. It can be wrong, it can also be unproductive.

Your definition isn't clear. As far as I can understand what you are saying, it's that you feel like there is a little man in your head, who's driving the bus, and that's consciousness.
I have no idea if I'm aware of stuff when I'm asleep and not dreaming, because I don't remember it. I don't know if I dream. I wake up and sometimes have memories of dreams, but I can't say for sure that the dreams occurred, or that if they did occur they used the same part of my brain as conscious awareness. What I think my brain is doing is not really a good guide to what it actually is doing.

Since you can't explain Marvin or the deep brain probe results, I don't see why I have to. I haven't even proposed a theory.

 

[westprog]

To make the game even more fun, what's your answer to your questions?

If it's other than 'unknown', prove it.

Well, exactly. We don't know where, or how, consciousness arises in the brain - but somehow we can surmise that it is somewhere in the computer, not sure where, not sure what causes it, which bits might contain it and which don't.

This kind of speculation is fun, perhaps, but it's not based on anything in particular. It's just guesswork.

 

[westprog]

I haven't even proposed a theory.

But Pixy has, as have a number of contributors to this and similar threads. Pixy has asserted that the problem isn't even that difficult. When Piggy, for example, claimed that some non-computational physical theory might explain consciousness, he was accused of dualism.

The main argument here is between the people who think that the Turing/computational model is the certain/likely explanation for consciousness, and those who believe that this is unproven, unlikely, or undoubtedly wrong. Insofar as there are two camps, that is what the dividing line is.

 

[Third Eye Open]

Well, exactly. We don't know where, or how, consciousness arises in the brain - but somehow we can surmise that it is somewhere in the computer, not sure where, not sure what causes it, which bits might contain it and which don't.

This kind of speculation is fun, perhaps, but it's not based on anything in particular. It's just guesswork.

I don't have a degree in neuroscience, or in computer science, so I am not going to be able to go into the amount of detail it would take for you to be satisfied. I can give my reasons for having the opinion that I do, and I have done that.

All I can do is go with what the experts think, and computer science experts (in my experience) seem to think that computers could in principle be conscious. I don't know any neuroscience experts. As far as I understand the subject matter, it makes sense to me, so I accept it.

All I can do is learn what I have the time to about the subject matter, and balance what I know with the opinion of experts.

 

[Earthborn]

You cannot assume that that simulated control system would be able to run a real power plant, just because it can run a simulated power plant.

I am not assuming that any simulated control system would necessarily be able to run the real power plant.

In post #1320 I was not even claiming that a simulation of the brain capable of controlling the human body is definitely possible. My argument in that post only requires one to acknowledge that a hypothetical brain simulation controlling a physical body (by running on a computer connected to that body) is a conceivable concept that cannot be ruled out as definitely impossible. If the universe is as digital physicists think it is, then it certainly is not impossible; just extremely difficult.

If Piggy thinks a physical brain can produce those "Sofia events" while this brain simulator cannot, then he is claiming body containing the brain simulator is a P-Zombie. Instead he has been arguing that simulations cannot possibly affect anything in the physical world, ignoring the roboticists who test control programs in simulation before loading the same programs into physical robots.

If the control portion of a simulation happens to work in a real system, that's a lucky piece of good fortune, but it's quite rare.

Apparently in Piggy's mind "quite rare" becomes "cannot possibly happen, ever".

A computer can either carry out the task of producing a simulation of a power plant, or it can carry out the task of controlling the physical apparatus that runs a power plant.

Or controlling the physical apparatus that runs the power plant by emulating a computer running the control programs.

The trouble here is that a Turing machine can't send brain waves across a field of neurons.

This seems to me a rather controversial statement. If a Turing machine definitely can't, one has to wonder what sort of machine can.

First, hypercomputation is physically impossible, so this doesn't change anything.

As I understand it, even the physicists who favour the idea of a Turing machine Universe admit that it is still an open question whether hypercomputation is physically impossible or not. However for it to be possible, some pretty bizarre and inelegant physics would need to be true and because of that theoretical physicists tend to prefer to think that is most likely physically impossible.

 

[Earthborn]

So what part of the computer will be conscious? The processor? The RAM? The disc drive? The power supply? All of the processor or just the registers?

Yes. All those parts contribute to "consciousness", though some parts more than others.

Is the computer conscious between instructions?

No. Consciousness (however defined) is a process, and a process does not occur when it is temporarily halted, no matter how short a time.

In the case of the paper-and-pen implementation, what is conscious then?

The process.