Has consciousness been fully explained?

[Ichneumonwasp]

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

You aren't seriously proposing that as an answer are you? Living systems also undergo relatively slow (on their time scale) one-way changes -- we call it death.

This is in no way comparable to the conformational changes in proteins that can then relax into their other (native if we wish to call it that) state and repeat the change again and again, cycling between the two states.

 

[!Kaggen]

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.

I do not dispute that computationalism is an interesting albeit controversial model for consciousness.
What concerns me is getting stuck with it as the only model.
At this early stage of understanding how the brain works I believe this would be counterproductive.
We need to keep our imaginative options open whilst the data accumulates.

 

[westprog]

You aren't seriously proposing that as an answer are you? Living systems also undergo relatively slow (on their time scale) one-way changes -- we call it death.

This is in no way comparable to the conformational changes in proteins that can then relax into their other (native if we wish to call it that) state and repeat the change again and again, cycling between the two states.

And are there other systems which cycle between states?

I'm not doubting that life is unique, and has special properties, but it's difficult enough to identify exactly what these are without throwing computers into the mix and saying that there is behaviour common to life and computers and not anything else.

If a claim is put forward that certain behaviour is unique to certain things and not to others, then it's sufficient rebuttal to point out where the behaviour is not unique.

When the response to this is continually of the nature "you can't tell the difference between a computer and cheese" then it gets a little wearing, of course, but until a coherent physical description is provided, then it's a necessary chore.

If "computation" is a proper physical quality, then it should be quantifiable, it should be possible to devise units of computation, it should be measureable, and so on. As it is, it seems to be just a vague concept - not nearly solid enough to rest a theory on.

 

[rocketdodger]

You aren't seriously proposing that as an answer are you?

Yeah, he is.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

And are there other systems which cycle between states?

Sure, but the big difference between life and any other non-living (natural) phenomenon is that entropy increases (as in your example) in the non-living systems and never reverses from an input of energy. With life and with computers one of the features is that energy is put into the system to counter entropy and return the system back to an earlier state (entropy still increases in total, but order can be maintained within the system from the input of energy).

The only things that I know to do that are living creatures and man-made tools. Everything else runs down, increasing entropy without being able to restore order for brief periods.

I'm not doubting that life is unique, and has special properties, but it's difficult enough to identify exactly what these are without throwing computers into the mix and saying that there is behaviour common to life and computers and not anything else.

I don't think there is anything that is common to life and computers and nothing else, but the use of energy to counter the effects of entropy is certainly something they hold in common and something without which thinking is not possible.

If a claim is put forward that certain behaviour is unique to certain things and not to others, then it's sufficient rebuttal to point out where the behaviour is not unique.

I agree, but the rebuttal must actually be appropriate to the claim.

When the response to this is continually of the nature "you can't tell the difference between a computer and cheese" then it gets a little wearing, of course, but until a coherent physical description is provided, then it's a necessary chore.

I agree.

If "computation" is a proper physical quality, then it should be quantifiable, it should be possible to devise units of computation, it should be measureable, and so on. As it is, it seems to be just a vague concept - not nearly solid enough to rest a theory on.

I'm not entirely certain one should call it a physical quality; but I'm not all that interested in that side of things, so that is probably just my biases talking.

I think it might make more sense to speak of information manipulation where information is defined in terms of having a meaning (at least at some level). Neural inputs always begin with information that far exceeds the fact that there are ion channels opening and closing; there is always meaning inherent to the signal because receptors code for several different features of any stimulus -- such as location, intensity, duration, etc. That information is maintained and manipulated throughout its transmission to the CNS.

 

[rocketdodger]

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

Bravo westprog, bravo.

You respond with an image of a phenomenon that is defined by the destruction of the system in question. The river flows over the rock, the canyon walls are slowly destroyed and washed downstream.

Not sure how that fits "long lasting" but then again your understanding of words is far more advanced than I could even imagine. Apparently.

All systems tend towards a stable state. The reasons are obvious.

Wrong.

Life does not.

Life tries to maintain a thermodynamically unstable state. Otherwise it is no longer alive.

Or are you claiming that our bodies are the most thermodynamically stable state they could possibly be in right now? Eh?

And if we are thermodynamically unstable, what is keeping us in that state, westprog?

How can a body maintain a thermodynamically unstable state when all the laws of the universe are conspiring to kill us?

 

[rocketdodger]

Sure, but the big difference between life and any other non-living (natural) phenomenon is that entropy increases (as in your example) in the non-living systems and never reverses from an input of energy. With life and with computers one of the features is that energy is put into the system to counter entropy and return the system back to an earlier state (entropy still increases in total, but order can be maintained within the system from the input of energy).

The only things that I know to do that are living creatures and man-made tools. Everything else runs down, increasing entropy without being able to restore order for brief periods.

Bingo.

I wonder .... how might a system be able to pull off such a feat?

Hmmmm...

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Bingo.

I wonder .... how might a system be able to pull off such a feat?

Hmmmm...

I certainly hope there's vodka involved.

 

[PixyMisa]

That would also be the only rational explanation for this thread.

 

[blobru]

With just a squeeze of lemon (soupçon, if you will).

 

[westprog]

Well, there's a problem if we confuse functional description with physical description, sure. But clearly both nature and we can develop information storage and retrieval systems (brains and computers). As concrete systems, necessarily, they each have a physical and a functional description. Where functions overlap, common terms only make sense.

I'm not arguing against the use of common terms - it's just that if we use "information" to mean "stuff that is of interest and usefulness to us" - which is how we use it, normally, when talking about computers - then we have to be very careful not to extend that functional description into the physical realm. In the physical realm, all the effects that one particle has on its neighbours are of equal status, and convey equal information. When a theory relies on the confusion between two realms, one can legitimately doubt its value.

 

[westprog]

Sure, but the big difference between life and any other non-living (natural) phenomenon is that entropy increases (as in your example) in the non-living systems and never reverses from an input of energy. With life and with computers one of the features is that energy is put into the system to counter entropy and return the system back to an earlier state (entropy still increases in total, but order can be maintained within the system from the input of energy).

The only things that I know to do that are living creatures and man-made tools. Everything else runs down, increasing entropy without being able to restore order for brief periods.

But that's quite clearly not the case. The entire earth counters entropy by virtue of the energy flow from the sun.

If you doubt this, have a look at some of the discussions on thermodynamics in the creationist threads, here or on talk.origins. The supposedly unique thermodynamic nature of life is robustly debunked.

In the case of a computer, it's fairly clear that by the time the power station has burned the fossil fuels to generate the electricity to power the machine, entropy is behaving just as it should. Nothing unique in either case.

Any system that receives energy from an external source has the potential to reverse entropy locally, whether it's a tree or a pile of bricks.

I don't think there is anything that is common to life and computers and nothing else, but the use of energy to counter the effects of entropy is certainly something they hold in common and something without which thinking is not possible.

Talk.origins and entropy.

entropy only strictly increases in an isolated system; that there are no completely isolated systems in nature, save maybe the universe as a whole; and that the whole idea of isolated systems is really an abstraction for pedagogical purposes

Using energy to counter the effects of entropy is something that's not only not rare, it's almost universal.

I'm not entirely certain one should call it a physical quality; but I'm not all that interested in that side of things, so that is probably just my biases talking.

I think it might make more sense to speak of information manipulation where information is defined in terms of having a meaning (at least at some level). Neural inputs always begin with information that far exceeds the fact that there are ion channels opening and closing; there is always meaning inherent to the signal because receptors code for several different features of any stimulus -- such as location, intensity, duration, etc. That information is maintained and manipulated throughout its transmission to the CNS.

I certainly agree with the concept of meaningful information. The question is - meaningful to whom?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

But that's quite clearly not the case. The entire earth counters entropy by virtue of the energy flow from the sun.

If you doubt this, have a look at some of the discussions on thermodynamics in the creationist threads, here or on talk.origins. The supposedly unique thermodynamic nature of life is robustly debunked.

In the case of a computer, it's fairly clear that by the time the power station has burned the fossil fuels to generate the electricity to power the machine, entropy is behaving just as it should. Nothing unique in either case.

Any system that receives energy from an external source has the potential to reverse entropy locally, whether it's a tree or a pile of bricks.

Are you suggesting that the earth is building things based on the energy it gets from the sun, that it is increasing order in non-living things? If it is, fine, I have no problem with it, and it simply strengthens the point becaue if there is an increase in order in non-living things, that increase in order must follow some rules; if it doesn't follow any rules and is just a one-off phenomenon, then it doesn't matter to this discussion. Perhaps if you could give me a robust example to demonstrate this process it would help.

The important issue for living things and computers concerns information, which requires order; and both the collection and use of information follows rules. Order is maintained and even increased only with inputs of energy. Both computers and nervous systems follow rules and without those rules they can't do anything with the information. Computers have those rules largely imposed from above while nervous systems have them in place from the onset (but with modifications).

Whether or not the potential for increased order exists or not doesn't matter for information manipulation. There actually must be an increase in local order for it to occur.

I certainly agree with the concept of meaningful information. The question is - meaningful to whom?

In the case of organisms, meaningful to them; but they don't define the meaning themselves. Meaning is inherent in the information they receive because of the history of life, which has determined what types of inputs result in benefit and danger to an organism. We have to build that into a computer, we supply the meaning; but nature has already supplied the meaning for living things based on what works to keep them alive long enough to reproduce. That's what nervous systems are all about.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I'm not arguing against the use of common terms - it's just that if we use "information" to mean "stuff that is of interest and usefulness to us" - which is how we use it, normally, when talking about computers - then we have to be very careful not to extend that functional description into the physical realm. In the physical realm, all the effects that one particle has on its neighbours are of equal status, and convey equal information. When a theory relies on the confusion between two realms, one can legitimately doubt its value.

But all sorts of confusion can also arise over phrases such as "stuff that is of interest and usefulness to us". There is the stuff that we define as of interest to us and there is stuff that is inherently of interest to us as organisms because it aids our survival. The higher level 'definitional stuff' is possible only because of the lower level 'survival stuff'. If we confuse those issues then we end up with ideas like 'information is only useful if someone defines it as such' but that is clearly not true. Some information is built into nervous systems as important from the outset. No one had to define it. Survival itself defined it as 'important'.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Can we just cut to the chase and stop all this minor quibbling?

We are not talking about a system that has one constraint on it with life, nervous systems, or computers. There is the entropy issue. There is the maintenance of integrity issue. There is the ability to transmit information issue. There is the ability to transmit information maintaining its integrity issue. There is the computation issue. Etc, etc ad nauseum.

That other stuff in the world include one or the other of these constraints is not what it is important. They have to include all the important contstraints.

 

[AlBell]

In the case of organisms, meaningful to them; but they don't define the meaning themselves.

It seems to me they do define the meaning themselves. Who else?

Meaning is inherent in the information they receive because of the history of life, which has determined what types of inputs result in benefit and danger to an organism. We have to build that into a computer, we supply the meaning; but nature has already supplied the meaning for living things based on what works to keep them alive long enough to reproduce. That's what nervous systems are all about.

And there's the problem. We define the meaning; some believe programming will allow computers to define their own meaning. And that's back to -- all life dead -- what meaning?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

It seems to me they do define the meaning themselves. Who else?

I think it is more the case that meaning is defined for them by a 'bigger process". A tree shrew doesn't decide for itself what a particular type of touch means or a particular sound. It has certain predispositions built into it.

We are the same at our most basic level. We have certain meanings that are inherent to the types of receptors we have. Modality, duration, location, etc. are all coded by various types of receptors. We do not define that meaning -- it is simply built in.

On a 'bigger scale' we see the same thing in our easily learned fear of snakes. We have certain types of meanings already built into us that can become another type of meaning in the proper context -- see someone who shows fear of snakes and we fear snakes (assuming the same is true of us as with certain types of monkeys and there is no good reason not to).

And there's the problem. We define the meaning; some believe programming will allow computers to define their own meaning. And that's back to -- all life dead -- what meaning?

Wait a second, though. Just because we create the meaning within a system that can function on its own does not imply that the meaning disappears if we die. It just means that we are the ones who decided what is meaningful in a computer system. The meaning stays no matter what happens to us. A conscious computer is still a conscious computer. It just didn't decide for itself, at its most basic level, what was meaningful. But since we don't either I don't see where there is any problem.

 

[AlBell]

Other than the fact life itself is the only arbiter of what is meaningful for its' specific self?

When computers are deciding what is meaningful for computers, it will indeed become 'interesting'. I will continue to at least hope top-down programming will never achieve that state of affairs, or if it could, be allowed to. Loaded guns and idiots?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Other than the fact life itself is the only arbiter of what is meaningful for its' specific self?

But life isn't deciding anything. The process of natural selection results in what amounts to a 'decision' as far as what we are discussing here. Higher life forms deciding what they think is meaningful is another part of what we call meaning (the bigger part, yes).

When computers are deciding what is meaningful for computers, it will indeed become 'interesting'. I will continue to at least hope top-down programming will never achieve that state of affairs, or if it could, be allowed to. Loaded guns and idiots?

Sure, but I thought the discussion was "is it possible?". I have yet to hear an objection that stands.

I, for one, share your concern over computers being 'like us'. I would want to turn the thing off as soon as we prove that it is possible if we want to prove it is possible. We aren't very nice creatures, and without some airtight three laws of robotics I would have the same concerns that you do.

 

[rocketdodger]

But that's quite clearly not the case. The entire earth counters entropy by virtue of the energy flow from the sun.

How so?

If you doubt this, have a look at some of the discussions on thermodynamics in the creationist threads, here or on talk.origins. The supposedly unique thermodynamic nature of life is robustly debunked.

No, it isn't. And yes, I looked. The "debunking" of which you speak only entails pointing out that what life does is not inconsistent with the second law of thermodynamics.

Nobody has addressed the issue of how life managed to consistently -- for over 3 billion years -- keep entropy at bay when there is no single natural law that could be responsible.

You can't just say "well gravity pulls stars together, that is an instance of decreasing local entropy" because living cells are not held together by gravity. You can't just say "chemical reactions decrease local entropy" because life is more than a single chemical reaction.

If you don't want to agree that life is unique in a qualitative way, then fine. But you can't ignore the fact that life is by far the most thermodynamically improbable system in the known universe.

A living cell lasts for more than 3 billion years.

A dead cell lasts for far less than a single year.

In the case of a computer, it's fairly clear that by the time the power station has burned the fossil fuels to generate the electricity to power the machine, entropy is behaving just as it should. Nothing unique in either case.

I don't claim that computers counter entropy like life does. My claim is that life is able to counter entropy because of computation, and that is what life has in common with computers.

Any system that receives energy from an external source has the potential to reverse entropy locally, whether it's a tree or a pile of bricks.

There isn't a single system in the universe that does it to the extent that life on Earth does.

I mean this is basically the definition of life. I can't even believe this is a discussion. Biology 101, anyone?

Why don't you explain to us, westprog, how a living cell manages to stay in the same functional form for 3 billion years when, were it to die, it would break down into simpler components within a short time.

No, really. What mechanism is responsible for that feat?