Has consciousness been fully explained?

Status
Not open for further replies.
cornsail said:
Can anyone answer this for me? RD, maybe you can lend your superior intellect to the question.
Click to expand...


There is a difference between simulation and reality for physical objects, but it is not at all clear that there is a clear distinction between simulation and reality for actions (aside from the obvious truism that a simulation is not the thing itself). That is the fundamental point when discussing consciousness. Consciousness is not an object; it is an action.

The better analogy that we have used repeatedly in these discussions is with running. Simulated running is running -- not in the real world but in the simulated world. The closer the simulation is to actual running the more informative the process by which we acheive the simulation is for understanding how running works in the real world. Same for consciousness, at least theoretically. The idea is that a simulation can potentially provide a model for how consciousness works in the brain; not the any simulation would be consciousness in the brain. Obviously it cannot be -- it is a simulation after all. But if the simulation provides enough information, if it is close enough to how the brain works, then we probably should even speak of it "being conscious" within its simulated world.

ETA:
Or more succinctly, as Pixy said, it's a category error, or a framing error. The simulated orange is an orange within the simulation. A real orange is an orange in the real world.
 
Last edited:
Ichneumonwasp said:
But, as you seemed to imply earlier the idea of a robot that passes for conscious but which is not conscious seems to be a non-starter. We still have the "problem of other minds", so how could you operationalize a definition for a robot that passes for conscious but is not conscious? That's the old p-zombie argument and it doesn't seem coherent to me; there seems to be an underlying assumption in the argument that consciousness is somehow separable from the behavior that we see as consciousness.

I don't see how it is even possible. To begin, you would need a clear cut definition of exactly what consciousness *is*. I have asked people to try to pin this down before but have found few to no takers.
Click to expand...

Perhaps because consciousness is closer to art than science a definition seems irrelevant except possibly "its what humans do".

Its like the definition of life. Sure there is the medical one, but why do want a better "quality of life" then. What is a better quality of life?

I think our difficulty with coming to definitions of parts of ourselves where imagination is still free, has to do with our innate ability to imagine something that has yet to be defined and consciousness seems to be an endless frontier.

Sometimes exploring new frontiers requires more risk than rigor.
 
Last edited:
cornsail said:
So if I simulate an orange with my Turing Machine I can actually eat it and reduce my risk of gout?
Click to expand...
As I said, that's a category error. It's a logical fallacy.

Let me ask you this in turn: If you read a simulated poem, can it stir real emotions?
 
Better question: When your simulated brain/body reads a simulated poem, will that stir real emotions?
 
cornsail said:
Can anyone answer this for me? RD, maybe you can lend your superior intellect to the question.
Click to expand...

No, you could not eat an orange simulated by a turing machine, if you are outside the simulation.

But you could have a conversation with a simulated consciousness, you could play games with a simulated consciousness, you could have cyber sex with a simulated consciousness, you could show a simulated consciousness your photos and have it react like a normal person would via. a chatroom or webcam, and finally if you hooked the simulated consciousness up to a body it could control outside the simulation then you could walk down the street with it to the store and buy a pack of cigarettes.

You have no trouble assuming I am conscious, just because of the way I respond to your communication. If I told you I was a simulated consciousness, what would you say -- oh, sorry, I change my mind because you aren't flesh and bone? I don't get it.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
What problem is Pixy not facing? The problem of other minds? I'm afraid that I don't understand your point.
Click to expand...

The ( admittedly stupid ) point is that the problem of other minds doesn't apply in cases when it thwarts one's position and does apply in cases when it supports their position.

In particular, we know the other minds of humans because ... just because ... and we can't ever know the minds of non-humans. Half of that is correct.
 
AlBell said:
Agreed. Which is the problem you choose not to face.
Click to expand...
No. That's the problem you are refusing to face.

Why do you think there would be a difference? How could you tell? Why do you think it is even possible for there to be a difference?

I've answered all those questions, logically and scientifically, consistent with everything we've learned about neuroscience. You haven't even considered them.
 
Ichneumonwasp: Only that Pixy, or DD, provide definitions allowing objective 3rd party measurements used to deem another being conscious.

If you agree with Pixy etal that objective 3rd party observations correctly describe your 1st person consciousness, I'd wonder if you were conscious as I understand what the term implies.

I'll never know what it's like to be a bat, or you.
 
AlBell said:
Ichneumonwasp: Only that Pixy, or DD, provide definitions allowing objective 3rd party measurements used to deem another being conscious.

If you agree with Pixy etal that objective 3rd party observations correctly describe your 1st person consciousness, I'd wonder if you were conscious as I understand what the term implies.
Click to expand...
How is it possible for this not to be possible? That's the question.

What is this magic that makes consciousness different from everything else in the Universe?

Why do you think there is such magic? Why is it necessary? How is it possible?

What is it that you know that contradicts everything we know about psychology and biology and chemistry and physics, and how did you come about this miraculous insight?

I'll never know what it's like to be a bat, or you.
Click to expand...
Perhaps not. But you could at least try to think about the question.
 
AlBell said:
Ichneumonwasp: Only that Pixy, or DD, provide definitions allowing objective 3rd party measurements used to deem another being conscious.

If you agree with Pixy etal that objective 3rd party observations correctly describe your 1st person consciousness, I'd wonder if you were conscious as I understand what the term implies.

I'll never know what it's like to be a bat, or you.
Click to expand...


That is the problem of other minds. We operationally try to overcome it by just the means they are using; that has been a part of philosophy for centuries and is the underlying rationale for the Turing Test.

Without it there is simply nothing else to discuss. The only other alternative is that we are all the solipsist. If you believe that to be the case, then what is the point of engaging in any of these discussions?

To discuss this issue intelligently, however, we can make inroads; but all depends on definitions of the words we use. Since we discuss consciousness in terms of feeling and awareness I have tried to get folks to commit to some sort of definition for those words. I have yet see very good definitions. If we want any sort of explanation of consciousness I think that is where we should begin.

The other option is to build a system that functions in the same way as other beings that we consider conscious and see how it works.

The options seem fairly obvious to me. Either we can't discuss the matter in the first place and so should remain silent; or we can and should try to agree on what we are talking about in the first place.

ETA:
Besides, discussions about consciousness concern not the actual experiencing of anyone else's consciousness but about explaining what consciousness is or how it works. Objective explanations fit into the explanatory mode. They do not pretend to actually experience what anyone experiences.
 
Last edited:
Even if we're having trouble nailing down the definitions, we can at least agree whether we're basing our concepts in science or magic. Because if people want to discuss magic, that's a whole 'nother section of the forum.
 
PixyMisa said:
Even if we're having trouble nailing down the definitions, we can at least agree whether we're basing our concepts in science or magic. Because if people want to discuss magic, that's a whole 'nother section of the forum.
Click to expand...

Well this is the religion and philosophy sub-forum, subjects in which, historically, imagination has dominated reason.
I have suggested you take your definitions to the science sub-forum and nail them down there, whilst we enjoy our imaginations here in this forum.

Deaf ears it seems...
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
PixyMisa said:
Even if we're having trouble nailing down the definitions, we can at least agree whether we're basing our concepts in science or magic. Because if people want to discuss magic, that's a whole 'nother section of the forum.
Click to expand...


Very true.
Click to expand...
Hmm. Religion and Philosophy section, not Science, check. (I see !Kaggen beat me to it.)

I'd be happy to read a major thread in Science about what we actually know about consciousness. I have no doubt Wasp, Pixy and many others have much to teach.

Even given SRIP, C-T thesis, and GEB, the answer to "What is this magic that makes consciousness different from everything else in the Universe?" is no more known to us today today than it was to the ancient Mesopotamians. Before trying to explain consciousness, maybe seeing if we can answer "What is this magic that makes Life different from everything else in the Universe?" would offer a starting place.
 
Last edited:
!Kaggen said:
Well this is the religion and philosophy sub-forum, subjects in which, historically, imagination has dominated reason.
I have suggested you take your definitions to the science sub-forum and nail them down there, whilst we enjoy our imaginations here in this forum.

Deaf ears it seems...
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, but that is wrong. Philosophy, from its inception, has depended critically on definitions. Essentially that is what Plato's dialogues primarily concern, and that is precisely what Aristotle spends so much time on at the beginning of virtually all of his tracts; and why most people don't bother to read him because he bores them to death.

It is reason that philolosphy has concerned itself with for the past 400 years almost exclusively, not imagination. That, in fact, is one of the problems in discussions about consciousness. Consciousness concerns awareness and feeling -- or what has historically been called "the passions". Philosophy has relegated the passions to second class citizenship historically because the passions were felt to be "animal" while philosophy tried to concentrate on what it considered human -- reason.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom