Has consciousness been fully explained?

[Meed]

What are you talking about?

This is a very simple physical definition that applies to all information of all conceivable types.

System A changes it's behavior, for some reason, when the behavior of system C changes.

But A's only access to the state of C is via the intermediary B.

Hence, B is information regarding the state of C, from the perspective of A.

It couldn't be more simple.

Ah, that's good. That's basically what I'm saying but much more coherent than my clumsy attempt.

So when a storm knocks down a tree and it falls on a rock, the tree falling on the rock is information about the weather from the perspective of the rock?

 

[Meed]

This, not that. Touch receptors only respond to a certain stimulus (this) and not anything else.

Well they only respond in a certain way to certain stimuli and not others, but I think that would be true of anything.

They also happen to 'decode' those other characteristics of a stimulus (duration, intensity, location) based on how they are 'constructed'.

?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

So when a storm knocks down a tree and it falls on a rock, the tree falling on the rock is information about the weather from the perspective of the rock?

I don't understand. Why would that be information about the weather and how did you come to that conclusion?

ETA:

And I'm a little unclear on what the change in the behavior of the rock might be? Wouldn't the information in this scenario be "whack"?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Well they only respond in a certain way to certain stimuli and not others, but I think that would be true of anything.


?

Tables only respond to one type of stimulus?

I'm not sure why you left a question mark concerning the basic function of receptors; they virtually all encode certain features of the stimuli to which they respond, namely, the ones I mentioned.

 

[dlorde]

Lol, dlorde you are a bit out of date.

Yeah, I'm getting old...

This kind of post is what started this whole discussion years and years ago. This is what everyone has been talking about the whole time.

I was simply explaining that point to Beth. I remember all this stuff from previous threads anyhow

 

[dlorde]

... It's possible that it's not theoretically possible...

That's the key point.

 

[dlorde]

The problem for me is you're saying that information is something that has "meaning" and is "encoded", yet does not require conscious/intelligent systems. What makes you say a touch receptor "encodes" and that that particular interaction has "meaning"? How do you define those terms?

Wikipedia suggests: "Information is any type of pattern that influences the formation or transformation of other patterns. In this sense, there is no need for a conscious mind to perceive, much less appreciate, the pattern. Consider, for example, DNA. The sequence of nucleotides is a pattern that influences the formation and development of an organism without any need for a conscious mind"

 

[AlBell]

...

"We" don't have to differentiate. Nature does that just fine on her own. It's the height of hubris to suppose that this would break down if we aren't there to watch.

Luckily no one has made that assertion, huh?

 

[Drachasor]

Luckily no one has made that assertion, huh?

Plenty of people have made the assertion that information is meaningless without a conscious person there to interpret it, or at least made that implication many times. Perhaps I misunderstood though.

You acknowledge than the consciousless system can react objectively differently to different sorts of information, yes?

 

[AlBell]

Plenty of people have made the assertion that information is meaningless without a conscious person there to interpret it, or at least made that implication many times. Perhaps I misunderstood though.

Information that has meaning to a conscious entity will have no meaning for most potential observers.

You acknowledge than the consciousless system can react objectively differently to different sorts of information, yes?

Of course. Again, you just defined the universe. Only the tiniest fraction of "information" has meaning to human consciousness, and only a slightly larger fraction has "meaning" (or we might say 'value' or 'utility') to any lifeform.

 

[Drachasor]

Information that has meaning to a conscious entity will have no meaning for most potential observers.

Though not all potential observers, you seem to say.

But of course, how does this information have meaning to a conscious entity? It is translated into neural signals, is it not? Such signals in the optic nerve and from other nerves establishing our senses are sent to the brain where it interprets them. Can we agree on that?

Now, do you think consciousness resides in the eyes? Partly in the eyes? What about the nerves on the skin? The nose? Tongue? Some other sensory nerve? Or would you say that consciousness resides wholly in the brain?

Of course. Again, you just defined the universe. Only the tiniest fraction of "information" has meaning to human consciousness, and only a slightly larger fraction has "meaning" (or we might say 'value' or 'utility') to any lifeform.

In other words, there's a notable difference between a rock and a computer. Correct?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Information that has meaning to a conscious entity will have no meaning for most potential observers.

I'm afraid that really didn't answer the issue Drachasor raised. In your view, is it possible for information to have any sort of meaning in the absence of a conscious observer?

 

[Beth]

Everything physical that composes a real person can theoretically be measured within certain limits. Once you get below the atomic level, the Heisenberg uncertain principle rears its ugly head.

And this matters, how? There's no indication at all that we store any information at that level in our brains, and every indication that we do not.

I don’t think that anyone knows how we store information within our brains, although I gather we are getting a relatively good map of the different parts of the brain that are involved in various functions. I don't find it at all inconceivable that neurons are making use of subatomic particles, like electrons, to store and transmit information. Depending on how that is done, it could make actual duplication impossible.

It is the relationship of thoughts that we don’t know how to duplicate. I don’t think that thoughts should be considered objects in the real world. Actions is probably a better description. Nonetheless, our thoughts have relationships with one another within our consciousness. I’m not certain that those relationships can be duplicated. How would you go about duplicating an action that can’t be observed?

The duplication is not a necessary part of the thought experiment. We can propose a sufficiently advanced species made an Earth System simulation and everything we know arose from that. You don't HAVE to copy someone's thoughts to have a simulation that has thoughts.
But I will say that there's no indication that thoughts can't be observed. We can already observe how thoughts relate to various parts of the brain in a crude way and we have a tremendous amount of room for improvement.

Certainly, there is some very interesting work going on in that area. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that thoughts can be observed. We can observe the brain with special machines to determine what parts are being used while subjects concentrate on specific tasks. That’s very different from being able to observe thoughts. I don’t know that it would ever be possible to observe how different thoughts interact with each other. In post 2687 you said: “Name a relationship or interaction between particles or other objects in the real world that can't be duplicated if you disagree.” I disagreed. I think the relationship or interactions between thoughts in a conscious person cannot be duplicated.

I think that, hypothetically, you are correct any collection of sounds can be considered music. I think that problem is isomorphic to the problem of defining information. What constitutes information is observer dependent, just as what constitutes music is observer dependent. That issue is, IMO, the heart of this discussion
How can we differentiate between patterns, whether within the brain or not, that constitute ‘information’ and patterns that do not? To consider all patterns as information is like considering all sequences of sounds to be music. Such definitions are not useful in furthering our understanding of the phenomena under discussion.

It's objective.

Why do you think that the patterns that contain information and patterns that do not can be distinguished on an objective basis? Do you think it’s possible to do the same for random sequences of sound versus musical compositions? I don’t think either is possible, but I could be wrong. Can you give an example of how such a distinction might be made?

Just like a computer reacts different to different patterns, so does the brain. This in fact shows how a rock is very different from a computer, since it will show no significant difference in how it handles a short burst of energy of one pattern vs. another of the same energy and duration.

I don’t think this is established fact. We know that a computer will give the same response to the same input assuming that nothing happens to interrupt the processing. We don’t know that human being will respond the same way to the same input at a later time. In fact, we know that in many cases they do not even when attempting to be as consistent as possible.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I don’t think that anyone knows how we store information within our brains, although I gather we are getting a relatively good map of the different parts of the brain that are involved in various functions. I don't find it at all inconceivable that neurons are making use of subatomic particles, like electrons, to store and transmit information.

Kandel's work sheds considerable light on the issue -- it appears to be related to the available synapses, numbers of synapses, 'strength' of synapses and new synapse formation between neurons in Aplysia at least.

 

[Meed]

I don't understand. Why would that be information about the weather and how did you come to that conclusion?

A rock (system A) changes its behavior when a tree (intermediary B) falls on it as a result of the weather (system C).

Hence, B is information regarding the state of C, from the perspective of A.

 

[Meed]

Wikipedia suggests: "Information is any type of pattern that influences the formation or transformation of other patterns. In this sense, there is no need for a conscious mind to perceive, much less appreciate, the pattern. Consider, for example, DNA. The sequence of nucleotides is a pattern that influences the formation and development of an organism without any need for a conscious mind"

Under this definition everything that acts in the physical world is information.

 

[Drachasor]

I don’t think that anyone knows how we store information within our brains, although I gather we are getting a relatively good map of the different parts of the brain that are involved in various functions. I don't find it at all inconceivable that neurons are making use of subatomic particles, like electrons, to store and transmit information. Depending on how that is done, it could make actual duplication impossible.

It's pretty inconceivable as the brain doesn't have the capacity to store particles at that level of precision. You're proposing that there's something more precise than DNA in the brain and that no one has ever come across it.

We are quite familiar with all the component parts of the brain. We're familiar with how they interact. We just haven't determined fully the significance of all of those interactions (e.g. what given pathways mean precisely and so forth). What we're essentially missing is the encoding method the brain uses on a structural level, but we know what tools and objects it uses to do the encoding.

Certainly, there is some very interesting work going on in that area. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that thoughts can be observed. We can observe the brain with special machines to determine what parts are being used while subjects concentrate on specific tasks. That’s very different from being able to observe thoughts. I don’t know that it would ever be possible to observe how different thoughts interact with each other.

We know where different sorts of thoughts happen, that's what I meant. The first step in figuring out how things work is figuring out where to look. Then there's figuring out where to look even better...and there's a few repetitions of that before the really interesting stuff begins.

In post 2687 you said: “Name a relationship or interaction between particles or other objects in the real world that can't be duplicated if you disagree.” I disagreed. I think the relationship or interactions between thoughts in a conscious person cannot be duplicated.

Do you not think all physical relationships can be simulated? Or is it that you think there's something metaphysical going on in the brain and that's why it can't be simulated?

If you don't think a physical relationship can be simulated, why not?

Why do you think that the patterns that contain information and patterns that do not can be distinguished on an objective basis? Do you think it’s possible to do the same for random sequences of sound versus musical compositions? I don’t think either is possible, but I could be wrong. Can you give an example of how such a distinction might be made?

Obviously the observer doesn't make that distinction. The systems the information interact with do. A given RISC computer reacts differently to its RISC code than it would to a CISC code. One it responds to, the other will produce errors (which can be objectively defined by how the system responds).

I think in principle this would be possible with sound and music. The system being considered would be the people listening, of course.

I don’t think this is established fact. We know that a computer will give the same response to the same input assuming that nothing happens to interrupt the processing. We don’t know that human being will respond the same way to the same input at a later time. In fact, we know that in many cases they do not even when attempting to be as consistent as possible.

You tell a computer to give you a random number, and ask again later, and it won't give you the same number. "Oh" you say, "but the internal clock or whatever mechanism it uses to make the numbers is different!" True, but on what basis do you claim the human brain is the same at both times when you give it the same input?

 

[AlBell]

Though not all potential observers, you seem to say.

But of course, how does this information have meaning to a conscious entity? It is translated into neural signals, is it not? Such signals in the optic nerve and from other nerves establishing our senses are sent to the brain where it interprets them. Can we agree on that?

I see nothing there I object to, for lifeforms having neurons, optic nerves, brains, etc.

Now, do you think consciousness resides in the eyes? Partly in the eyes? What about the nerves on the skin? The nose? Tongue? Some other sensory nerve? Or would you say that consciousness resides wholly in the brain?

For lifeforms this complex I'd say it resides in the brain, and to some as yet unknown degree, in body systems.

In other words, there's a notable difference between a rock and a computer. Correct?

To lifeforms at or close to human level intelligence, yes; to most life and also not-life, no.

In your view, is it possible for information to have any sort of meaning in the absence of a conscious observer?

Of course, although the implication of "meaning" gets problematic; input (that is, "information") is either recognized as such and ignored, or results in some change.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Of course, although the implication of "meaning" gets problematic; input (that is, "information") is either recognized as such and ignored, or results in some change.

OK, that's cool. And agreed about the word "meaning". That's a tough one.

 

[Drachasor]

For lifeforms this complex I'd say it resides in the brain, and to some as yet unknown degree, in body systems.

So, would you agree that information of a certain type must therefore enter the brain? The eyes can't just send anything up the optic nerve, yes? What goes up there has to be in a particular form for the brain to develop of picture of what is going on vs. getting friend and being incapable of processing the input. Would you agree to that?

To lifeforms at or close to human level intelligence, yes; to most life and also not-life, no.

So you are saying, there's no objective difference between a hammer and a rock? Between an asteroid and a space station? That any claim that something is a tool or was created is inherently subjective?

Further, you are saying it is impossible to have an objective description of what a logic gate is? Since computer posses logic gates and rocks do not, and will follow the rules of logic when signals of a particular type go through those gates and a rock has nothing remotely like that. Hence, by that reasoning, logic itself is entirely subjective, correct?

Of course, although the implication of "meaning" gets problematic; input (that is, "information") is either recognized as such and ignored, or results in some change.

And it is your contention, that there is no objective difference between the information a rock recognizes and the information a computer recognizes? There's no objective difference between how the two react to the same information?