• 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.
PixyMisa said:
The idea that you need a conscious observer for computation to be meaningful boils down to:

Computation can't produce consciousness because computation can't produce consciousness because computation can't produce consciousness because computation can't produce consciousness because computation can't produce consciousness because computation can't produce consciousness because computation can't produce consciousness because computation can't produce consciousness because computation can't produce consciousness because computation can't produce consciousness because computation can't produce consciousness because computation can't produce consciousness because...

And so on for 1919 posts.
Click to expand...

Unless of course you define consciousness in terms of computation :rolleyes:
 
AlBell said:
To me the top down design is a major part of the problem achieving 'consciousness' in a machine. Don't the current proponents seem to ignore that exact specifications of all the interacting parts will be required?

"At planck scale" seems meaningless until that design spec is understood (as does any programming effort).
Click to expand...


Well there is the practical issue of how to do it and there is the issue that I thought we were discussing here -- is it theoretically possible. I agree that the practical problems of trying to build a machine to function like human consciousness are enormous. The bigger goal of trying to show that it is theoretically possible has nothing to do with machines, though. It is a way of debunking dualism.
 
!Kaggen said:
Unless of course you define consciousness in terms of computation :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I think the concept of "burden of proof" needs to be restated.

It's not really good enough to say "prove me wrong". Nor is it good enough to say "of course cheese doesn't compute". And intelligence is better demonstrated rather than asserted.
 
Dancing David said:
BTW: A rock heating in the sun is not non-linear, it is aggregate but there are no exponential processes involved.
:p
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_system

Wiki said:
Nonlinear problems are of interest to engineers, physicists and mathematicians because most physical systems are inherently nonlinear in nature.
Click to expand...

Non-linearity is the rule, not the exception, in nature. Whether or not it's exponential is an entirely different issue.
 
Last edited:
westprog said:
I think the concept of "burden of proof" needs to be restated.

It's not really good enough to say "prove me wrong". Nor is it good enough to say "of course cheese doesn't compute". And intelligence is better demonstrated rather than asserted.
Click to expand...

Still waiting for the demonstration ...
 
rocketdodger said:
Still waiting for the demonstration ...
Click to expand...

Its the computationalists that need to demonstrate since it is they that are making the claim

Westprog, Piggy, Cornsail and myself are skeptical of the claim since we believe any definition of consciousness still needs work.
 
!Kaggen said:
Its the computationalists that need to demonstrate since it is they that are making the claim

Westprog, Piggy, Cornsail and myself are skeptical of the claim since we believe any definition of consciousness still needs work.
Click to expand...

Yeah but there is nothing more to be done.

This is honestly what is going on at this point:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kmG7KXxShM

The computational model can account for all 4 lights. If someone thinks the model is inadequate, and they want to have a serious discussion about it, they need to come up with that fifth light.

So far ... nope
 
AlBell said:
To me the top down design is a major part of the problem achieving 'consciousness' in a machine. Don't the current proponents seem to ignore that exact specifications of all the interacting parts will be required?
Click to expand...
No.

"At planck scale" seems meaningless until that design spec is understood (as does any programming effort).
Click to expand...
It's a reductio ad absurdum refutation of the anti-computationalist position. It is, by definition, impossible for it not to work.

When presented with a reductio ad absurdum refutation of one's position, one is not meant to pick up the ball and run with it.
 
PixyMisa said:
No.
Click to expand...
Yes.

It's a reductio ad absurdum refutation of the anti-computationalist position. It is, by definition, impossible for it not to work.
Click to expand...
Once someone understands how to put the parts together, and what parts are involved, I'd agree.

Get back with us when you, or anyone else, understands reality to that level of detail.

When presented with a reductio ad absurdum refutation of one's position, one is not meant to pick up the ball and run with it.
Click to expand...
The ball was just kicked into your face ... oops sorry, my aim was way too low.
 
!Kaggen said:
Its the computationalists that need to demonstrate since it is they that are making the claim

Westprog, Piggy, Cornsail and myself are skeptical of the claim since we believe any definition of consciousness still needs work.
Click to expand...
The point is, it doesn't matter what the definition is. If you have a definition that is (a) logically coherent and (b) physically possible, then consciousness can necessarily be produced by a simulation.

If you have a definition that is (a) logically incoherent or (b) physically impossible, then why are you even here?

If you don't have a definition, that goes double.
 
AlBell said:
Once someone understands how to put the parts together, and what parts are involved, I'd agree.

Get back with us when you, or anyone else, understands reality to that level of detail.
Click to expand...

Reality, as we understand it, is not computable. It might be, at a deeper level than we currently understand. Any "proof" that starts out by saying "let's assume the nature of reality" is begging the question, as usual.

Is it possible that reality is a simulation? It's possible that it's possible. It's also possible that it's impossible.
 
AlBell said:
Yes.
Click to expand...
Hmm. Sorry, still no.

Once someone understands how to put the parts together, and what parts are involved, I'd agree.
Click to expand...
You can either take a position that is logically coherent and physically possible, in which case you agree with us; or take a position that is not, and be wrong.

Your objections are irrelevant.

The ball was just kicked into your face ... oops sorry, my aim was way too low.
Click to expand...
No.
 
rocketdodger said:
Yeah but there is nothing more to be done.
Click to expand...

I think that's probably true, in a sense. The thing that hasn't been properly defined is the explanation for something that hasn't been defined at all. There's no further development likely at this point.
 
rocketdodger said:
No, there is no conscious observer and no, it is not the same as a pile of rocks.

The observer(s) of a neuron firing are other neurons, or muscle tissue, or anything else that radically changes its behavior based on said neuron firing. I wouldn't consider worms conscious like humans yet their neurons compute just the same as ours.

A pile of rocks might exhibit some of the behavior of a neuron -- once. And such behavior might influence the behavior of other systems in a similar fashion, E.G. if one pile of rocks slid down the hill and triggered another pile that fell in turn. To be honest, I could construct a series of dominoes that would carry out any calculation a series of transistors could, so if the rocks were the right size and configuration anything is possible.

But the similarity stops there, because you won't find many such piles of rocks in series and you certainly will never find piles of rocks that return to a different state over time on their own. Contrast this with neurons and transistors, which are hooked up to other neurons or transistors, and can return to their unexcited state without any outside help, etc.

So I am not saying a bunch of falling rocks never carry out a computation. I am saying that neurons always carry out computation, since other neurons always do something with the excitation. Life isn't different from non-life because only life features computations -- that isn't anything I have ever said. I said from day one that life is different from non-life because only life features computations that cascade upon the results of other calculations in a serial way that can and does lead to a longer existence of life.

Think about this -- life has existed for how long on Earth? Lets use a conservative estimate and say 3 billion years. Assuming abiogenesis didn't happen too many times, that means every single cell on Earth has been around for 3 billion years. How could that happen? How is it possible for a system of particles to keep itself around in a relatively similar form for so long, despite all the things that could have destroyed it -- especially since the particles that compose the system are constantly replaced? Really, how is it possible?

The only way it could be possible is if such a system was able to change its behavior based on the state of the environment around it so that it could avoid the natural destructive forces of the universe. Period. How can a system change its behavior like that? There is only one way -- computation. Being able to determine which partition the state of the universe is currently in, in order to act accordingly.

Everything *can* compute. Computation *can* happen anywhere, if the constraints are in place. But life and the things life builds feature far more coordinated computation than anything else in the universe. Because only life has figured out how to use coordinated computation to make itself last longer, and very lately, in order to get parts of the universe to do things we want.

Understand?
Click to expand...

Are there non-living systems which are long lasting and which adapt their behaviour?

GrandCanyonLookingWest.jpg


All systems tend towards a stable state. The reasons are obvious.
 
Last edited:
SRIP!!! Church-Turing!!! READ GEB!!! Wrong. Yes. No.

wipe off keyboard, repeat
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom