Has consciousness been fully explained?

[Meed]

However, to assert that the actual physical mechanism, the box and wires and chips, will become conscious in the real world as a result of running a sim -- despite the fact that the physical behavior of the apparatus is no different -- this is an absurdity.

Minor disagreement here. The physical behavior of the apparatus is different when it is running a sim compared with when it is not running the sim. As Wasp put it, its behavioral difference can be described in terms of electrons moving through gates.

Of course, I agree that there is no reason to believe that the machine will take on the properties of what it is simulating as a result of this behavior. Like, it won't become wet when simulating water or become conscious when simulating a brain.

 

[Meed]

Information is not an abstraction. It is a defined term.

No, it's not a well-defined term. What is it that you think the definition of information is?

The brain is all about information processing. There's nothing in it that doesn't break down to information processing (or powering or taking care of its systems).

This is certainly not true, unless you consider all physical interactions to be information processing.

Consciousness is either a specific sort of information processing or it is an emergent property of information processing. Either way, it IS information processing.

Because...?

 

[Drachasor]

No, it's not a well-defined term. What is it that you think the definition of information is?

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

This is certainly not true, unless you consider all physical interactions to be information processing.

Physical interactions within the brain is how it processes information.

Because...?

It's either an emergent property or it is not. If not, then some part of the system does it specifically or it's magic. I'm assuming it isn't magic.

 

[PixyMisa]

Pointing out what we don't know is not the same as assuming everything we know is wrong. Just because we haven't found a realisable computational model more powerful than a Turing machine doesn't mean it isn't possible. If it turns out that such a machine is in fact possible within our universe then no Turing machine will ever be ability to simulate that machine (let alone the universe). Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Well, that's a self-negating argument if ever I saw one. If such a machine is possible within our Universe (and there is every reason to believe that it is not) then we just use that machine to run the simulation.

Why don't you helping try me instead of being repetitive while not actually adding any new information about what you think? Perhaps you could start by precisely and concisely laying out the terms and what theories, hypotheses or beliefs (widely held to be true or otherwise) should be treated as absolutely true for the purposes of this thought experiment. I have searched the thread previously but I couldn't track down any single post or page where that information seemed clear. A reference to the key earlier posts might be easier if the information I'm asking for is included.

It's a Planck-scale simulation.

You know what my beliefs are also?

Yes. Unless you don't believe what you have posted in this thread.

We have a partial understanding of biology and physics. There are many things we know we don't know yet

So?

(including exactly how consciousness operates)

Wrong.

and there are likely to be other aspects that we don't even know that don't know yet.

So, it's argument from ignorance time, is it? Shall I put you in the "magic" column too?

 

[PixyMisa]

Forget Searle. He's accidentally correct

How?

But yeah, there is definitely violation of the conservation laws if you expect programming-to-run plus conscious-behavior-to-occur whe you've only got enough physical apparatus to make the former happen.

Why?

 

[PixyMisa]

How do we get to sufficiency? None of us know. That is why we resort to the simulation of the universe. It should be sufficient in terms of information.

By definition, it has to be sufficient. That's why, if you reject the simulation argument, it follows that you believe in magic.

 

[westprog]

Oh, come on, admit it... it's not just "odd", it's ridiculous.

Baloney.

First of all, your misinterpretation of Church-Turing has been explained.

Secondly, it's been explained why a computationalist "explanation" of consciousness violates the known laws of physics.

Thirdly, it's been shown that you actually have no computationalist explanation or model of consciousness at all. Unless, of course, you care to produce one now.

This idea of yours has fallen apart at every available opportunity.

If you want to claim that it's true, you're going to have to do much better than that.

And doing better does not include trying to get people to prove you wrong.

I think you have to admit that Pixy at least appears to occupy a different world to the rest of us.

 

[Meed]

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

I'm aware of Shannon's information theory. I addressed it briefly earlier in the thread.

So, what is it that you think the definition of information is?

Physical interactions within the brain is how it processes information.

Do you consider all physical interactions to be information processing?

It's either an emergent property or it is not. If not, then some part of the system does it specifically or it's magic. I'm assuming it isn't magic.

That was not your claim. Your claim was "Consciousness is either a specific sort of information processing or it is an emergent property of information processing." (bolding added)

My question in response stands: "Because...?"

If you consider all physical interactions to be information processing then you don't need to answer.

 

[westprog]

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



Physical interactions within the brain is how it processes information.



It's either an emergent property or it is not. If not, then some part of the system does it specifically or it's magic. I'm assuming it isn't magic.

"Not magic" isn't a sufficient definition.

 

[Drachasor]

Do you consider all physical interactions to be information processing?

What does the brain do?

How does it interact with the rest of the body?

Treat it as a black box (initially).

Blood brings it what it needs to run. Nerves feed it information and output information (the blood does a little bit of that too).

We can easily define the information the brain receives in terms of nerve impulses and the bits of hormones and the like. All quite quantifiable.

It takes that stuff, processes it, and the output comes out. The output tells the body what to do in terms of information. Neurological studies on the brain further reinforce this view that it is an information processing center (complete with areas dedicated to certain kinds of processing). All this can be perfectly modeled in principle.

This isn't like a plane or a boat or water. Model the brain and you copy the most essential thing it does; process information.

Edit: Or let's put it another way. Let's say you can simulate the Earth and all inhabitants perfectly. Each person has a simulated mind, etc, etc. They are aware of what is going on around them, etc, etc. They are capable of thinking the same thoughts as their real counterpart, feeling the same emotions, experiencing the same pain, etc, etc, etc. In all respects their behavior as it relates to the simulation is indistinguishable from a real person. On what basis can you say such a person isn't conscious? On what basis can you say their thoughts and feelings don't count? Are you claiming that if we are actually "living" in that simulation then we aren't really conscious? How is that not completely arbitrary?

 

[westprog]

What you are saying is that a computer program that simulates a simple cypher, doesn't actually encode anything. That's absolutely and utterly ridiculous.

What makes the cypher a cypher is the interpretation of a conscious mind. Otherwise it's just electrons.

 

[westprog]

We know computers can add.

Actually, we don't. We can use a computer to perform a calculation for us, but it only constitutes addition when we interpret it as such. The operations performed by a computer aren't inherently addition. We decide how to interpret the results.

Consider an abacus. We can sit working it - "performing a calculation" but the person observing from the other side of the abacus will see the opposite calculation. Objectively, either is as valid. It's the person's interpretation that decides that what is taking place is addition.

What is happening in a computer is that a sequence of bits change to generate a series of very large numbers. These numbers are interpreted by us. It's just a superstition to believe that these numbers equate to another world where people are experiencing waterfalls - because there are an infinite number of different ways in which the numbers could be interpreted, and we choose just one. They don't exist in the numbers themselves.

 

[westprog]

Information is not an abstraction. It is a defined term.

And just what is it defined as? And how is information "processed"?

Honestly it seems like you know very little about the brain or computers. Maybe you should go study up on them a bit.

Or maybe you could, y'know, tell us?

 

[Meed]

What does the brain do?

How does it interact with the rest of the body?

On what basis can you say such a person isn't conscious?

On what basis can you say their thoughts and feelings don't count?

Are you claiming that if we are actually "living" in that simulation then we aren't really conscious?

How is that not completely arbitrary?

Here are some questions you've responded to without answering:

What is it that you think the definition of information is? (asked twice)
Because...? (asked twice)
Do you consider all physical interactions to be information processing? (asked once directly and once indirectly)

That's roughly 6 apiece. I'll call us even.

 

[Clive]

Everything that the brain does can be done by a Turing machine. No exceptions. Established by the Church-Turing thesis.

Assumption. Certainly not established by the Church-Turing Thesis.

Everything that everything does can be done in simulation by a Turing machine. No exceptions, unless you can actually establish that quantum randomness is (a) significant and (b) distinguishable from a pseudo-random sequence of arbitrary length (which is impossible).

No exceptions, unless there could be exceptions.

Therefore, it is mathematically established that Turing machines can produce consciousness.

In your dreams...

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.

Show me a peer reviewed paper where a mathematician has formally proved that a Turing machine, or lambda calculus, or recursion, any of the whole list of other computational methods can simulate a brain.

Well, that's a self-negating argument if ever I saw one. If such a machine is possible within our Universe (and there is every reason to believe that it is not) then we just use that machine to run the simulation.

Say it's a brain. You want to simulate a brain with a brain? If you can't explain exactly how that brain works then you aren't likely to build a machine that uses the same kind of process.

Yes. Unless you don't believe what you have posted in this thread.

Perhaps I was "being provocative"?

So, it's argument from ignorance time, is it? Shall I put you in the "magic" column too?

Speak for yourself. Any sufficiently advanced thinking appears to be indistinguishable from magic.

 

[westprog]

Everything that the brain does can be done by a Turing machine.

Assumption. Certainly not established by the Church-Turing Thesis.

This particular claim of Pixy's is so obviously false, and so entirely unsupported by any of the references that he's ever quoted, that one can't be surprised that he doesn't consider that any contrary arguments have been made.

It's blatantly obvious that whatever your opinions about the computational nature of the brain and the origin of consciousness, you can't remove the brain and replace it with an arbitrary computer. The person would die. And yet Pixy keeps repeating the same claim. Now, obviously he doesn't actually believe that a brain can be replaced by a computer - but since that's what he keeps saying, how can we have a reasonable argument?

That's why he uses phrases like "more powerful" rather than the more technical and more accurate language used in the real Church-Turing thesis. What Church-Turing really claims is so limited and so specific, it barely relates to this subject at all.

 

[rocketdodger]

I think it's not too difficult to find descriptions of one that cannot be satisfied by the other for cells and rocks. I think the more difficult general solution i.e. that there exists a definition that distinguishes between life and non-life, is not a fact, but a conjecture. Until such a definition is actually produced, it is only a conjecture to say that it exists. Were you arguing for the more general case or referring only to cells and rocks?

Only referring to cells and rocks.

This is the point: both cells and rocks behave according to the same physical laws I.E. the same underlying processes. Yet their behavior is vastly different. And, we can describe how that behavior is vastly different despite the fact that both classes of behaviors start with the same fundamentals.

This directly damages -- sufficiently to destroy it -- westprog's argument that because a computer and a rock behave according to the same physical laws, if a computer can be conscious then so can a rock. Because a cell can carry out metabolism but a rock cannot. A cell can undergo mitosis and a rock cannot. Etc.

 

[rocketdodger]

And I can distinguish between computers and cells. So what is the point of your point?

The point is that claiming the behavior of two systems is somehow equivalent just because both systems are built upon and obey the same fundamental laws is just wrong.

Cells, rocks, and computers all follow the same fundamental laws of quantum physics, whatever those may be.

Cells, rocks, and computers are all different.

Saying otherwise is just stupid. Discussing whether cells and computers have much in common isn't even relevant when people think that "there isn't anything going on in a cell that isn't also going on in a rock."

Once we get past the utter stupidity of cells vs. rocks we can progress into discussing cells vs. computers.

 

[rocketdodger]

Nobody has ever claimed that there's no way to distinguish between cells and rocks, and yet it's the constant rebuttal. It's the claim that computers and life have some special quality that rocks don't have that's in dispute, and always has been.

I don't see what the point is in constantly rebutting a claim that nobody has made.

No, you are just playing word games -- and you are losing.

You specfically said that "there isn't anything going on in a computer that also isn't going on in a rock."

I challenge this view by asking "is there anything going on in a cell that isn't going on in a rock?"

Now you face the difficult decision either admitting:

1) Actually, yes, since there is stuff going on in cells that is not going on in rocks, the same is true of anything that is not a rock -- otherwise we would call said thing a rock.
2) No, there is nothing going on in a cell that is not going on in a rock, and so we have to start all over and find another phrase besides "going on" to describe what is different between a cell and a rock, because clearly even you admit that there are indeed differences despite your semantics.

Either way, your argument is destroyed. Thus you have refused to admit either of the above.

Are you now taking the position that there are things "going on" within a cell that are not "going on" within a rock?

 

[rocketdodger]

But I don't see any evidence for that and again I must ask why you think it is at all likely.

Isn't it obvious?

It isn't a question of "thinking that it is likely."

It is a question of "wanting it to be likely."