Has consciousness been fully explained?

[Meed]

Tables only respond to one type of stimulus?

They only respond in certain ways to certain types of stimulus, just as touch receptors only respond in certain ways to certain types of stimulus. If a nerve becomes depolarized it will result in an electrical charge. Not all stimuli will cause the nerve to become depolarized. I don't think it's technically correct to say that they only "respond" to certain types of stimulus. There are things going on in a nerve when it's not firing. But they only respond in that specific way "firing" when a stimulus causes them to become depolarized. The type of stimuli that cause them to become depolarized are, thus, obviously the only stimuli they respond to by firing an electrical charge. Not quite the same as saying "they only respond to one type of stimulus", I don't think.

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.

I had asked earlier how "encode" is defined, so I wasn't sure what that meant in terms of information.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

They only respond in certain ways to certain types of stimulus, just as touch receptors only respond in certain ways to certain types of stimulus. If a nerve becomes depolarized it will result in an electrical charge. Not all stimuli will cause the nerve to become depolarized. I don't think it's technically correct to say that they only "respond" to certain types of stimulus. There are things going on in a nerve when it's not firing. But they only respond in that specific way "firing" when a stimulus causes them to become depolarized. The type of stimuli that cause them to become depolarized are, thus, obviously the only stimuli they respond to by firing an electrical charge. Not quite the same as saying "they only respond to one type of stimulus", I don't think.

I told you I don't always communicate in the clearest fashion. I assumed that most people in this conversation know what neuron response implies. The number of stimuli that receptors respond to are quite limited; much more limited than other things in the world, like tables, which also don't change their internal state to any appreciable degree.

I had asked earlier how "encode" is defined, so I wasn't sure what that meant in terms of information.

I probably meant to say 'decode', but that is not really the proper word either, since that implies that such information is somehow encoded in the stimulus. Extract? Impose? Not sure what word fits. That information is delivered by the stimulus based on the way that our receptors respond to stimuli and how they are laid out in space.

 

[blobru]

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.

The tree (B) falling isn't a very good intermediary here for sending information about the weather (C) to the rock (A). Why?

The tree's falling may have been caused by the weather; but it may have been caused by a number of other things: age, rot, fire, insects, lumberjacks, etc. So the rock doesn't get very good information about the weather from a tree falling on it: certainly not the sort of information it would need to repond to the weather intelligently.

Compare this with a system where say, a receptor cell only fires in response to light. And a muscle cell only twitches in response to the chemical change that the receptor cell's firing causes. Now we have some real information transfer: the receptor cell (B) is giving reliable information about the presence of a threshhold amount of light (A) to the muscle cell (C). And the muscle's cell twitching is permitting the cellular system of which they are a part to respond to that information intelligently.

So one can narrow the definition of "information", begin to differentiate it from "noise", by requiring the intermediary (B) to be selective about its environment, in the way the receptor cell is about light, vs the way the tree is not about the weather.

 

[AlBell]

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?

All life is nothing but photon exchanges, so I don't know what you're looking for with that.

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?

Two subjective agreements form an objective.

Further, you are saying it is impossible to have an objective description of what a logic gate is?

That's just silly. But it takes multiple human level consciousnesses to reach that objective agreement.

Since computers possess 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?

Until more than one human's subjective logic makes it objective, sure.

Other than that, I'm not sure what you were trying to say.

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?

In our subjective views, of course there is. But neither rock nor computer "recognizes" anything, other than in the sense an Na+ and a Cl- "recognize" NaCl is possible and combine. Rocks may just get warmer in the sun.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

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.

A rock (system A) changes its behavior when wacked (intermediary B) as a result of a tree falling on it (system C). Doesn't matter why the tree fell. I don't see a way for the rock to have access to that info.

 

[Meed]

I told you I don't always communicate in the clearest fashion. I assumed that most people in this conversation know what neuron response implies. The number of stimuli that receptors respond to are quite limited; much more limited than other things in the world, like tables, which also don't change their internal state to any appreciable degree.

No, I know what you meant, but the problem is we're talking about a generalizable definition of information. If we're to have a definition of information that can allow us to distinguish information from non-information in contexts besides the nervous system, then we can't just assume "respond" means "fires an electrical signal down the axon". Technically speaking a response is any physical change. So it's more precise to say that a nerve ending only responds in a particular way to particular stimuli. This, I think, is true of everything.

I don't see how change in internal state is relevant to the definition being proposed. It would seem the point being made is that nerves only respond with electrical charges to certain stimuli, not that its internal state changes. I wouldn't say it's true that a table's internal state doesn't change, but I guess that would depend on how you define "appreciable degree". It's harder to think of a table having an "internal" state simply because it's more uniform in substance, whereas a cell has a cell wall leading to its outer and inner layers being more distinguishable. If we constructed a table with a metal outer layer and a wooden inner layer, then the inner layer could rot, which we could call an "appreciable change" in its internal state.

 

[Drachasor]

Two subjective agreements form an objective.

I like pie. My grandmother likes pie. Therefore pie is objectively good?

Tobacco company A says it is harmless (with many people). So does B (with many other people). Therefore it is harmless?

I think you need to revise your definition of "objective" because it isn't working right.

 

[rocketdodger]

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?

Correct.

You can also say it is information about the sun and humidity or anything that caused the storm, and anything that caused the cause of the storm, and so on and so forth.

 

[rocketdodger]

The tree (B) falling isn't a very good intermediary here for sending information about the weather (C) to the rock (A). Why?

The tree's falling may have been caused by the weather; but it may have been caused by a number of other things: age, rot, fire, insects, lumberjacks, etc. So the rock doesn't get very good information about the weather from a tree falling on it: certainly not the sort of information it would need to repond to the weather intelligently.

Compare this with a system where say, a receptor cell only fires in response to light. And a muscle cell only twitches in response to the chemical change that the receptor cell's firing causes. Now we have some real information transfer: the receptor cell (B) is giving reliable information about the presence of a threshhold amount of light (A) to the muscle cell (C). And the muscle's cell twitching is permitting the cellular system of which they are a part to respond to that information intelligently.

So one can narrow the definition of "information", begin to differentiate it from "noise", by requiring the intermediary (B) to be selective about its environment, in the way the receptor cell is about light, vs the way the tree is not about the weather.

This is all true, but it doesn't matter -- saying the falling tree is information to the rock doesn't hurt any argument we care about. It is simply an objective definition.

 

[rocketdodger]

A rock (system A) changes its behavior when wacked (intermediary B) as a result of a tree falling on it (system C). Doesn't matter why the tree fell. I don't see a way for the rock to have access to that info.

Cornsail has it right. The tree is the intermediary.

Like I said, though, it doesn't matter -- there is no potential for this objective definition to damage our position in any way. On the contrary, it helps our position.

 

[AlBell]

I like pie. My grandmother likes pie. Therefore pie is objectively good?

Tobacco company A says it is harmless (with many people). So does B (with many other people). Therefore it is harmless?

I think you need to revise your definition of "objective" because it isn't working right.

Within the context of this thread, nothing I said justified any of that sophomoric babble. Do you have a point you'd care to try to make?

 

[Drachasor]

Within the context of this thread, nothing I said justified any of that sophomoric babble. Do you have a point you'd care to try to make?

You said you just need two people in agreement to have an objective statement. Two subjective opinions does not an objective opinion make. It's as simple as that.

Now if you meant something else and just worded it badly, please explain it, because as best I can tell you just essentially said reality is fundamentally subjective.

Or in other words, explain exactly why two subjective views creates an objective view.

 

[blobru]

This is all true, but it doesn't matter -- saying the falling tree is information to the rock doesn't hurt any argument we care about. It is simply an objective definition.

Right. It's just when we come to talk about intelligent systems and consciousness, we're talking about selecting -- editing and ultimately organizing -- information in the way the cell handles and encodes light, versus the way the tree handles the weather. One-to-one selectivity shows how the information is encoded, and makes the parallel with computer I/O.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

No, I know what you meant, but the problem is we're talking about a generalizable definition of information. If we're to have a definition of information that can allow us to distinguish information from non-information in contexts besides the nervous system, then we can't just assume "respond" means "fires an electrical signal down the axon". Technically speaking a response is any physical change. So it's more precise to say that a nerve ending only responds in a particular way to particular stimuli. This, I think, is true of everything.

I don't see how change in internal state is relevant to the definition being proposed. It would seem the point being made is that nerves only respond with electrical charges to certain stimuli, not that its internal state changes. I wouldn't say it's true that a table's internal state doesn't change, but I guess that would depend on how you define "appreciable degree". It's harder to think of a table having an "internal" state simply because it's more uniform in substance, whereas a cell has a cell wall leading to its outer and inner layers being more distinguishable. If we constructed a table with a metal outer layer and a wooden inner layer, then the inner layer could rot, which we could call an "appreciable change" in its internal state.

Hmm, OK, I see what you are getting at.

Why is any of that a real problem, though? If something hits a table, that is information exchange isn't it? One thing hits another and changes something in the object hit. I would think that would constitute information exchange. It's not very usable information, though.

I think I am thinking further along the line -- into refinements in information within a system. And I tend to use the nervous system because that is the one I am most familiar with.

I also tend to dislike definitions of information that include non-living things because it seems like an invite into "the structure of everything is information" which tends to veer off into weird land.

Part of my issue, also, is that I am trying to understand what 'meaning' is in all this and I've never really arrived at a satisfactory answer for myself.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Cornsail has it right. The tree is the intermediary.

Like I said, though, it doesn't matter -- there is no potential for this objective definition to damage our position in any way. On the contrary, it helps our position.

Really? I tend to think of intermediaries as direct connections between two entities, like in this situation a rock-tree fusion (if for however short a time).

I'm not sure this definition is very good if the conclusion one takes is that a rock receives information about the weather from a falling tree. That sounds like a fairly silly thing to have one's definition conclude.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Right. It's just when we come to talk about intelligent systems and consciousness, we're talking about selecting -- editing and ultimately organizing -- information in the way the cell handles and encodes light, versus the way the tree handles the weather. One-to-one selectivity shows how the information is encoded, and makes the parallel with computer I/O.

Yes. One of my big problems in this, I think, is that I see the further refinements front and center; so that's what I want to accentuate.

Which means that I will probably get in the way of any good discussion of what information *is* at its most basic.

 

[Drachasor]

Really? I tend to think of intermediaries as direct connections between two entities, like in this situation a rock-tree fusion (if for however short a time).

I'm not sure this definition is very good if the conclusion one takes is that a rock receives information about the weather from a falling tree. That sounds like a fairly silly thing to have one's definition conclude.

I think the essential distinction here is how controlled and localized the flow of information is. Hit a corpse on the hand and information from that doesn't get to the brain, it spreads out at the blow. Hit a person on the hand and you have a localized spread, but you also have information sent in a compact form up to the brain as a direct result of that blow. Though this could perhaps use some refinement on the technicalities.

It's a fact though that a living entity or computer is a much more ordered system than a rock or the like.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I think the essential distinction here is how controlled and localized the flow of information is. Hit a corpse on the hand and information from that doesn't get to the brain, it spreads out at the blow. Hit a person on the hand and you have a localized spread, but you also have information sent in a compact form up to the brain as a direct result of that blow. Though this could perhaps use some refinement on the technicalities.

It's a fact though that a living entity or computer is a much more ordered system than a rock or the like.

Yes, exactly, which has been one of the points I have been trying to get across in previous posts. I think I keep using the word "constraints" to push the idea since I seem to be defining everything in negative terms lately.

Seems like a weird definition nonetheless, which, again, is why I should probably pull out of this part of the conversation. I'm not one of those math/computer science types anyway.

 

[AlBell]

You said you just need two people in agreement to have an objective statement. Two subjective opinions does not an objective opinion make. It's as simple as that.

Now if you meant something else and just worded it badly, please explain it, because as best I can tell you just essentially said reality is fundamentally subjective.

Or in other words, explain exactly why two subjective views creates an objective view.

Sorry. You jump around from kiddy pool to water as deep as the Mariana Trench on what subjective and objective "mean", and the fundamental nature of reality.

Start a thread if that discussion is of interest to you. I won't pursue that topic here.

 

[Meed]

The tree (B) falling isn't a very good intermediary here for sending information about the weather (C) to the rock (A). Why?

The tree's falling may have been caused by the weather; but it may have been caused by a number of other things: age, rot, fire, insects, lumberjacks, etc. So the rock doesn't get very good information about the weather from a tree falling on it: certainly not the sort of information it would need to repond to the weather intelligently.

Of course it's a crude example, but recall the definition proposed by RD:

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.

System A (rock) changed its behavior when system C (the weather) changed via the intermediary B (the tree). That appears consistent with the definition to me.

Is it to be further specified that the behavior of intermediary B must be something that could only be a function of system C's behavior?

Compare this with a system where say, a receptor cell only fires in response to light. And a muscle cell only twitches in response to the chemical change that the receptor cell's firing causes. Now we have some real information transfer: the receptor cell (B) is giving reliable information about the presence of a threshhold amount of light (A) to the muscle cell (C). And the muscle's cell twitching is permitting the cellular system of which they are a part to respond to that information intelligently.

So one can narrow the definition of "information", begin to differentiate it from "noise", by requiring the intermediary (B) to be selective about its environment, in the way the receptor cell is about light, vs the way the tree is not about the weather.

I do like this definition better than others, but a couple comments:

It's possible for a photoreceptor cell to fire in the absence of light, it's just something that typically doesn't happen. If its calcium level lowers enough it will fire. So there is a continuum of reliability with your example on the high end and my example on the low end, as opposed to a fundamental difference between the two.

Also I'd be very surprised if there aren't highly reliable three-way interactions in the "inanimate" world.