Has consciousness been fully explained?

[Drachasor]

I see no definition in there. "We can define the information the brain receives in terms of nerve impulses and the bits of hormones and the like" isn't a definition.

And I further specified it as the particular patterns of those impulses.

The brain uses those patterns, transmitting them thither and hither within the body and itself, and those signals produce very specific reactions in a very controlled manner.

If you want to pretend there's no difference between this and a rock, that's your call, but then there's no difference between a brain and a rock according to you. You would also be completely and utterly wrong.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Under that definition everything is information, isn't it? There is nothing that is not "not something else".

Yes, every discrete non-identical entity is or contains information, if nothing else, that it is not something else. There is no new information, however, about carbon from one identical atom to the next or from one Tickle-Me-Elmo to the next.

ETA:

This would be info at its most basic, of course. It can be further refined into 'not that and not that', and further into 'not that or that or that or that'.

That seems to be how it is defined at a cellular level. Change is particularly important as information; lack of change is ignored by the nervous system, for instance.

ETA:

Oh, wait, you were probably asking if the things themselves are information. To that I think I would have to say 'no'. It is in the interaction of things with a secret decoder ring that we get information. In our nervous system information is defined first in terms of receptor function I would have to say. So, actually, I guess it would be "this, not that", where 'this' has a certain very specified meaning, such as touch, position, light, sound, etc. I assume computers are designed to define information in a similar bottom up way. Complex information is simply built from these beginnings.

 

[Meed]

What's your point again?

That rocketdodger's post was incorrect, obviously.

 

[Meed]

And I further specified it as the particular patterns of those impulses.

The brain uses those patterns, transmitting them thither and hither within the body and itself, and those signals produce very specific reactions in a very controlled manner.

You came into the thread saying "Information is not an abstraction. It is a defined term." I asked you to provide a definition. And your answer is (paraphrasing) "in regard to the brain, it's the patterns of nerve impulses in the brain"(?)

Journalist: Can you tell me a little bit about the melody you just played?
Musician: Sure. It was all about the relationships between the tonic note and the other notes.
Journalist: Can you explain what "tonic note" means?
Musician: Sure, it's an easily defined term. The tonic note in this melody was C sharp. Other notes have different relationships to it based on their different intervals and this all results in certain melodic effects.
Journalist: But how do you define what a tonic note is as opposed to other notes?
Musician: I just defined it is at matters to the melody I played, which is what we're talking about. It's C sharp.

Recall your initial post went on to say "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)."

It's silly to define "information" as "the pattern of nerve impulses in the brain" to support your claim that "the brain is all about information processing". Can you say tautology?

If you want to pretend there's no difference between this and a rock, that's your call

What makes you think I want to pretend there's no difference between "the pattern of nerve impulses in the brain" and a rock? Lol.

but then there's no difference between a brain and a rock according to you

Please don't make things up about me.

 

[AlBell]

As much as I hate to say it again ...

Again, I'm afraid this is not a useful question because computers don't exist without us creating them. Once created, however, there are clear differences between a computer and a rock even in the radical absence of humans.

And around we go. Clear to at least some lifeforms, but meaningless in any useful sense to most.

A sun-warmed rock would have the same value for most if not all that didn't function at human level intellect.

Given a system A and B, "information" is behavior of A (or a subsystem of A) that B interprets as referencing some other system C.

Meaning, the stuff inside a rock just sitting there isn't "information" until some other system interprets it as such.

And how does that differ from info in computers? And no I don't think 'another computer' or even 'another machine of some sort' interprets it will be an actual answer.

 

[Drachasor]

You came into the thread saying "Information is not an abstraction. It is a defined term." I asked you to provide a definition. And your answer is (paraphrasing) "in regard to the brain, it's the patterns of nerve impulses in the brain"(?)

Journalist: Can you tell me a little bit about the melody you just played?
Musician: Sure. It was all about the relationships between the tonic note and the other notes.
Journalist: Can you explain what "tonic note" means?
Musician: Sure, it's an easily defined term. The tonic note in this melody was C sharp. Other notes have different relationships to it based on their different intervals and this all results in certain melodic effects.
Journalist: But how do you define what a tonic note is as opposed to other notes?
Musician: I just defined it is at matters to the melody I played, which is what we're talking about. It's C sharp.

Recall your initial post went on to say "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)."

It's silly to define "information" as "the pattern of nerve impulses in the brain" to support your claim that "the brain is all about information processing". Can you say tautology?

No, it is more like I play something on a piano and say it is music. You ask what music is, I say it is a series of sounds played over time. You ask to define what a sound is. I specify that in the case of the piano it is what happens when you press a key, and there's a different sound for each key. I further specify that key presses create particular vibrations.

The brain processes information. The particular information it processes are neural signals. What a neural signal is well-defined and they are composed of sequences (e.g. patterns) of ions being transmitted along a nerve.

It's not a tautology, you're just being thick.

Please don't make things up about me.

I'm not, it is the logical conclusion of the inanity you are saying.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

As much as I hate to say it again ...


And around we go. Clear to at least some lifeforms, but meaningless in any useful sense to most.

A sun-warmed rock would have the same value for most if not all that didn't function at human level intellect.

Sure, as it relates to their lives; but this is the case here and now as computers relate to the lives of most beings.

The computer would nonetheless still perform its designed functions until it ran out of power and stopped working or developed some bug or whatever. Whether or not anyone recognized its function is beside the point -- just like a tree continues to exist when our backs are turned. No one needs to experience it to define that function; the function is already defined here and now when we build it.

That its function would be useless to most life forms is nice to comment upon but has no bearing on the fact that its function was already defined and persists even in our radical absence. If that function is consciousness, it will continue to be conscious.

 

[Meed]

Yes, every discrete non-identical entity is or contains information, if nothing else, that it is not something else. There is no new information, however, about carbon from one identical atom to the next or from one Tickle-Me-Elmo to the next.

ETA:

This would be info at its most basic, of course. It can be further refined into 'not that and not that', and further into 'not that or that or that or that'.

I can't really object to that. However, it wouldn't be meaningful to say "the brain is all about information processing" under this definition, since that would not distinguish it from any other physical system.

ETA:

Oh, wait, you were probably asking if the things themselves are information. To that I think I would have to say 'no'. It is in the interaction of things with a secret decoder ring that we get information.

Okay, now you lost me.

In our nervous system information is defined first in terms of receptor function I would have to say.

Keep in mind I'm looking for a generalized definition of information. Does the definition change depending on the system?

 

[Drachasor]

Keep in mind I'm looking for a generalized definition of information. Does the definition change depending on the system?

That's not needed for the purposes of this conversation, anymore than you need a generalized definition of language to talk about english (or learn it).

 

[Meed]

No, it is more like I play something on a piano and say it is music. You ask what music is, I say it is a series of sounds played over time.

Nope. The only definition you attempted to provide was "the pattern of nerve impulses in the brain". That is non-generalizable, unlike "a series of sounds played over time". Thus, it's not a definition. Unless you believe information processing only occurs in the brain. In that case your argument is tautological.

The brain processes information. The particular information it processes are neural signals. What a neural signal is well-defined and they are composed of sequences (e.g. patterns) of ions being transmitted along a nerve.

So what's your definition of information? I'm willing to accept "I don't know", "It's hard to explain", "I have a definition, but I don't want to tell you", whatever.

I'm not, it is the logical conclusion of the inanity you are saying.

The logical conclusion of pointing out that you haven't provided a definition of information is that there's no difference between a brain and a rock?

How's the weather on your planet?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I can't really object to that. However, it wouldn't be meaningful to say "the brain is all about information processing" under this definition, since that would not distinguish it from any other physical system.



Okay, now you lost me.



Keep in mind I'm looking for a generalized definition of information. Does the definition change depending on the system?

No, I don't see how the definition would change based on the system but each system probably deals with information differently. The most basic definition would always be 'this, not that'. But nothing has meaning unless it is somehow detected/decoded/whatever word we need to put here.

I wouldn't say that a rock is information if all there is are rocks. The way we use the word information concerns its function. Something is informative if it has meaning. So, we shouldn't really define a rock as information unless it interacts somehow with a system capable of extracting/creating the information, if only in our imaginations.

If a tree falls in the forest with no one around to hear, then it does not make sound. It emits waves, sure, but sound is the interaction of those waves with someone capable of hearing.

I would say that there is blooming, buzzing stuff out there; it becomes information when it interacts with a system capable of decoding it.

I guess this is just a definitional thing, and I have never thought about it much, but that's how I tend to think about it.

 

[AlBell]

Sure, as it relates to their lives; but this is the case here and now as computers relate to the lives of most beings.

Well, yes, existing humans find their functioning computers useful.

The computer would nonetheless still perform its designed functions until it ran out of power and stopped working or developed some bug or whatever.

And rockslides would continue to fall.

Whether or not anyone recognized its function is beside the point -- just like a tree continues to exist when our backs are turned. No one needs to experience it to define that function; the function is already defined here and now when we build it.

And as useful as the rockslide if nothing is around to interpret that function.

That its function would be useless to most life forms is nice to comment upon but has no bearing on the fact that its function was already defined and persists even in our radical absence. If that function is consciousness, it will continue to be conscious.

Indeed. If is the operative word the topic is discussing, and defining that function .... ???


Oh! I know! SRIP! Church-Turing! Read GEB!

 

[Meed]

That's not needed for the purposes of this conversation, anymore than you need a generalized definition of language to talk about english (or learn it).

This thread isn't just about the brain if you haven't noticed, bud.

 

[Drachasor]

Nope. The only definition you attempted to provide was "the pattern of nerve impulses in the brain". That is non-generalizable, unlike "a series of sounds played over time". Thus, it's not a definition. Unless you believe information processing only occurs in the brain. In that case your argument is tautological.

"pattern". That is how it is generalizable.

Of course, you don't want an actual discussion, you just want to keep this at the level of a semantic debate, because if it ever got beyond that this might be a worthwhile talk and perhaps you'd end up being wrong.

That's why you'll accept me not specifying the intricacies of what a sound is in general, but you won't for information.

I'm going to ignore your posts from now on, because you add nothing to this discussion.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Well, yes, existing humans find their functioning computers useful.


And rockslides would continue to fall.


And as useful as the rockslide if nothing is around to interpret that function.


Indeed. If is the operative word the topic is discussing, and defining that function .... ???

A rock slide would be just a bunch of rocks falling since no one could define it as addition. But a computer adding numbers, in the radical absence of humans, would continue to add numbers because that function is already defined. No one has to be there to define what the computer does as addition for it to be addition. We've already done that in the here and now.

Usefulness is an entirely different issue.

 

[Meed]

No, I don't see how the definition would change based on the system but each system probably deals with information differently. The most basic definition would always be 'this, not that'. But nothing has meaning unless it is somehow detected/decoded/whatever word we need to put here.

So the definition is "this, not that" where "this" and "that" do not refer to "things"?

I wouldn't say that a rock is information if all there is are rocks. The way we use the word information concerns its function. Something is informative if it has meaning.

Are there things that don't have meaning?

So, we shouldn't really define a rock as information unless it interacts somehow with a system capable of extracting/creating the information, if only in our imaginations.

So information is:

-"This, not that"
-Something that has meaning
-Something that is not a "thing"
-Something that interacts with a system that creates/encodes it

(?)

Sorry if this seems very unclear to me. Are you no longer saying everything is information (consider everything to mean "all interactions" if you like)?

A definition of information is something that should allow us to distinguish between information and non-information. So I'm trying to think how I could use your definition to do so and I'm having a hard time. I think the problem is that it contains too many hard to define terms. It must have "meaning", must be "created" or "encoded" by what it interacts with, etc.

If a tree falls in the forest with no one around to hear, then it does not make sound. It emits waves, sure, but sound is the interaction of those waves with someone capable of hearing.

I would say that there is blooming, buzzing stuff out there; it becomes information when it interacts with a system capable of decoding it.

If we define sound, in part, as a brain activity, then it doesn't make a sound. But the waves still interact with their environment.

Are you saying information only exists in interactions with "conscious/intelligent" systems? A problem with that is we can't define intelligence and consciousness in terms of "information processing" while at the same time defining information as "interactions with conscious/intelligent systems". There is a risk of going in circles here.

 

[Meed]

"pattern". That is how it is generalizable.

"of nerve impulses in the brain". That is how it is not generalizable.

The discussion is not limited to the brain. You yourself even linked to the wiki for Shannon's information theory in response to the question, which is certainly not brain specific. Even if it was limited to the brain, though "the pattern of nerve impulses" would be a terrible definition.

Honestly, you can admit you don't have a definition of information and I won't hold it against you. I just ask for reasonable/honest responses to questions.

Of course, you don't want an actual discussion, you just want to keep this at the level of a semantic debate, because if it ever got beyond that this might be a worthwhile talk and perhaps you'd end up being wrong.

The semantic discussion was initiated by you claiming that information was a defined term. It became ridiculous, because you dodged the question and then pretended you had answered it. Or maybe you really thought you had answered it sufficiently. Who knows.

That's why you'll accept me not specifying the intricacies of what a sound is in general, but you won't for information.

I said I would accept "It's too hard to explain" or an answer of that nature.

I'm going to ignore your posts from now on, because you add nothing to this discussion.

I don't blame you. The kiddie thread's down the street.

 

[Malerin]

"pattern". That is how it is generalizable.

Of course, you don't want an actual discussion, you just want to keep this at the level of a semantic debate, because if it ever got beyond that this might be a worthwhile talk and perhaps you'd end up being wrong.

That's why you'll accept me not specifying the intricacies of what a sound is in general, but you won't for information.

I'm going to ignore your posts from now on, because you add nothing to this discussion.

LOL, you've been here less than a month and already are ignoring people. Maybe the problem isn't other people?

 

[Drachasor]

LOL, you've been here less than a month and already are ignoring people. Maybe the problem isn't other people?

No, the problem is definitely him. I know how to recognize someone not interested in an honest discussion. Forums tend to have many people only interested in "winning the internets". Such people don't try to understand what the people they are talking to are saying, they instead do everything they can to "prove" other people wrong.

Or are you saying he isn't being purposefully dense about generalizing that bit about patterns in nerve impulses? Heck, I even specify what part to generalize (pattern) above and he still refuses to see it.

 

[Malerin]

No, the problem is definitely him. I know how to recognize someone not interested in an honest discussion. Forums tend to have many people only interested in "winning the internets". Such people don't try to understand what the people they are talking to are saying, they instead do everything they can to "prove" other people wrong.

Or are you saying he isn't being purposefully dense about generalizing that bit about patterns in nerve impulses? Heck, I even specify what part to generalize (pattern) above and he still refuses to see it.

I stopped following the thread in detail a couple pages ago. Just been skimming. I do know that RocketDodger and I have never seen eye to eye on anything, and neither of us has put the other on ignore.