Has consciousness been fully explained?

[Meed]

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.

So you're okay with the conclusion that a rock processes information? Or does "processing" require something else?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

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.

Photoreceptors will also fire from physical pressure. One of the problems with restricting things to receptors, as you point out, is that they all 'fire' when distressed in some way that has nothing to do with their regular function.

But that may not actually be a problem for a definition of information? Misfiring neurons relay information. It's just that the information doesn't reflect what they are supposed to reflect about the 'real world'.

 

[blobru]

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.

It's a very tricky, very broad, very loose term. I think transfers where A <--> B --> C (only A causes B, and B causes C) are ideally refined information. We can choose to call this "information"; or lower the bar and allow A --> B --> C, where A causes B (but not only A), so B only says that A may have happened (basically, "something happened" -- which is informative -- "but we don't what, exactly" -- so not very). Note that the frequency with which A leads to B (say it's almost always the case that B happens because of A), makes B more informative about A. While the chances that B may have happened because of something else -- D, E, F, etc. -- makes B less informative about A (as far as C is concerned). So, at least in the way we might conventionally express it, it does seem to be true there's some "information" there when the tree falls on the rock, just not very much, very good information; vs. the complete, excellent information we get when the photo-receptor cell fires in response to light (assuming it only fires in response to light; there will of course be cases where it misfires and 'misinforms' the muscle cell, but in a well-functioning, "intelligent" system these will be limited: the more limited, the more intelligent, one might say).

And so on. I tend to see it as a continuum from random noise, where B could have been caused by anything, to perfect information, where C 'knows' [it's guaranteed] that B could only have been caused by A.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

It's a very tricky, very broad, very loose term. I think transfers where A <--> B --> C (only A causes B, and B causes C) are ideally refined information. We can choose to call this "information"; or lower the bar and allow A --> B --> C, where A causes B (but not only A), so B only says that A may have happened (basically, "something happened" -- which is informative -- "but we don't what, exactly" -- so not very). Note that the frequency with which A leads to B (say it's almost always the case that B happens because of A), makes B more informative about A. While the chances that B may have happened because of D, E, F, etc., makes B less informative about A (as far as C is concerned). So, at least in the way we might conventionally express it, it seems to betrue there's some "information" there when the tree falls on the rock, just not very much, very good information; vs. the complete, excellent information we get when the photo-receptor cell fires in response to light (assuming it only fires in response to light; there will of course be cases where it misfires and 'misinforms' the muscle cell, but in a well-functioning, "intelligent" system these will be limited: the more limited, the more intelligent, one might say).

And so on. I tend to see it as a continuum from random noise, where B could have been caused by anything, to perfect information, where C 'knows' that B could only have been caused by A.

I like that very much. (But take out the muscle cell -- photoreceptors link to bipolar cells in the retina). I know why you use it -- it shows something more dramatic -- but it sounds confusing.


ETA:

And this fits very nicely with my instinct about what the definition should be -- that there should be constraints on the system to help refine it. I guess there is some general definition of information, but the important thing for complex system is specificity of information.

 

[Meed]

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.

Okay, then I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying something could only be information if it was "decoded" by a system that it has "meaning" to (I didn't know what was meant by those terms exactly), that it must involve something that only responds to certain stimuli and thus something like an interaction between a rock and a table wouldn't be information.

If you're saying that all physical interactions involve information exchange then there's no problem.

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.

Good luck. My father has devoted some of his academic efforts to writing on "the meaning of meaning". Not a walk in the park I would imagine.

I would think that meaning in this context is dependent on mental abstraction.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Okay, then I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying something could only be information if it was "decoded" by a system that it has "meaning" to (I didn't know what was meant by those terms exactly), that it must involve something that only responds to certain stimuli and thus something like an interaction between a rock and a table wouldn't be information.

If you're saying that all physical interactions involve information exchange then there's no problem.

I think it is probably more that I'm all over the place trying to figure this out for myself. I really like Blobru's way of stating it. Yes, it I think all physical interactions involve information exchange, but the specificity of that information may be very low. I've been groping around to express this idea of specificity with information. I should have just asked Blobru from the beginning.

 

[Meed]

Photoreceptors will also fire from physical pressure. One of the problems with restricting things to receptors, as you point out, is that they all 'fire' when distressed in some way that has nothing to do with their regular function.

But that may not actually be a problem for a definition of information? Misfiring neurons relay information. It's just that the information doesn't reflect what they are supposed to reflect about the 'real world'.

It's a problem for blobru's interpretation of rocketdodger's definition. Keep in mind at least three definitions of information are being proposed/discussed right now, so it can get a little confusing.

That a photoreceptor could have fired for reasons other than contact with light is a problem in the same sense that the tree could have fallen for reasons other than the weather.

ETA: It's not a problem given blobru's most recent clarification, but it addresses his/her objection to my rock and tree example

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

It's a problem for blobru's interpretation of rocketdodger's definition. Keep in mind at least three definitions of information are being proposed/discussed right now, so it can get a little confusing.

That a photoreceptor could have fired for reasons other than contact with light is a problem in the same sense that the tree could have fallen for reasons other than the weather.

I don't think it is a problem for the definition so much as a problem for the owners of photoreceptors.

He was just using that as an example, but I think the idea is sound. The most specific information would be information that could only come in one possible way. Photoreceptors are simply not perfect relayers of information. They're pretty dang good, though.

 

[blobru]

I like that very much. (But take out the muscle cell -- photoreceptors link to bipolar cells in the retina). I know why you use it -- it shows something more dramatic -- but it sounds confusing.

Oops, good catch (didn't know that label was taken). I meant photo-sensitive cell, or something less ambiguous, in the context of some simple phototaxis.

ETA:

And this fits very nicely with my instinct about what the definition should be -- that there should be constraints on the system to help refine it. I guess there is some general definition of information, but the important thing for complex system is specificity of information.

Maybe think of it not as a vague thing but as a measure of the quality of [environmental] inference: from perfect information (A must have happened!) to random info/noise (anything might have happened). That frames it best for me... I think.

 

[AlBell]

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

I'd be even more surprised if you found an example of something that wasn't.

 

[Meed]

I don't think it is a problem for the definition so much as a problem for the owners of photoreceptors.

He was just using that as an example, but I think the idea is sound. The most specific information would be information that could only come in one possible way. Photoreceptors are simply not perfect relayers of information. They're pretty dang good, though.

Agreed, I threw in an ETA.

 

[Drachasor]

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.

When you say that two people with a subjective opinion make something objective, you basically plunge straight into the world being subjective. At that point this whole conversation is essentially meaningless as solipsism might as well be the rule of the "land."

If that's how you view it, then fine, I won't debate the nature of reality here, but I also don't see how anything can be accomplished talking to someone about reality, simulations, and the like when they don't even think objective reality really exists.

 

[blobru]

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



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?



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.

Sorry, I didn't see this response earlier. Did my follow-up with Ich_wasp address all of this (except for the last bit, maybe -- I agree there might be highly reliable information transfers in the inanimate world; didn't mean to imply it was limited to life; it just describes the sort of phenomenon that biological systems, and artificial intelligence for that matter, exploit)?

 

[Drachasor]

Again, I don't think we need a general definition of information to discuss consciousness, replacing neurons, or the like. We only need a rather narrowly focused definition that distinguishes between rocks and mud vs. computers and brains. A general definition is something we're just going to have to take and refine into something useful again for this context anyhow.

 

[Meed]

Sorry, I didn't see this response earlier. Did my follow-up with Ich_wasp address all of this (except for the last bit, maybe -- I agree there might be highly reliable information transfers in the inanimate world; didn't mean to imply it was limited to life; it just describes the sort of phenomenon that biological systems, and artificial intelligence for that matter, exploit)?

Yarp. I like it.

 

[AlBell]

-- I agree there might be highly reliable information transfers in the inanimate world; didn't mean to imply it was limited to life;

Sounds exactly correct.

it just describes the sort of phenomenon that biological systems, and artificial intelligence for that matter, exploit?

Or, it just describes the sort of phenomenon that biological systems find provide meaningful information, and machines (like computers) by design react to?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Oops, good catch (didn't know that label was taken). I meant photo-sensitive cell, or something less ambiguous, in the context of some simple phototaxis.

It's probably just me. I see photoreceptor and think 'human'.

Maybe think of it not as a vague thing but as a measure of the quality of [environmental] inference: from perfect information (A must have happened!) to random info/noise (anything might have happened). That frames it best for me... I think.

It's excellent, man. I really, really like it.

 

[AlBell]

When you say that two people with a subjective opinion make something objective, you basically plunge straight into the world being subjective. At that point this whole conversation is essentially meaningless as solipsism might as well be the rule of the "land."

If that's how you view it, then fine, I won't debate the nature of reality here, but I also don't see how anything can be accomplished talking to someone about reality, simulations, and the like when they don't even think objective reality really exists.

Isn't it nice all worldviews find common ground in epistemology, dare I say, objectively.

 

[blobru]

Again, I don't think we need a general definition of information to discuss consciousness, replacing neurons, or the like. We only need a rather narrowly focused definition that distinguishes between rocks and mud vs. computers and brains. A general definition is something we're just going to have to take and refine into something useful again for this context anyhow.

I think most proposed definitions for consciousness in this thread revolve around "information processing", so that's likely how the discussion got to: "what is information?" Whether it helps distinguish rocks and mud from computers and brains, I'm not sure.

Yarp. I like it.

Cool. ("Yarp" fits your armadillo avatar, somehow; though what information it conveys in armadillo-speak is anyone's guess.)

Sounds exactly correct.


Or, it just describes the sort of phenomenon that biological systems find provide meaningful information, and machines (like computers) by design react to?

In computers it's certainly a case of exploitation by design (conscious adaptation), vs exploitation by natural adaptation with life.

 

[Beth]

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.

I don't know where you got that idea. I said I think it may be not be possible to perfectly duplicate the brain. The duplication your thought experiment postulates would be substantially more precise than DNA.

We know where different sorts of thoughts happen, that's what I meant.

That wasn't what I was talking about when I said "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?

Simulation is a different question than duplication. Simulation is easier. What do you mean by metaphysical? Thinking is going on in the brain. Is that metaphysical?

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).

Yes. Write in Spanish and I won't be able to understand you. So? Both RISC and CISC code are both information are they not? The question is how can we objectively distinguish between information and patterns that are not information? Your computer example doesn't work as it can't distinguish any information that isn't in the proper language. I, on the other hand, can easily tell that Spanish writing is information, even if I can't interpret it. But I can't infallibly tell what is information and what is not.

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.

How many subjective views do you think it takes to create an objective view? Objectivity is nothing more than reliable consistency from one person to another. All measurements are simply codified and standardized subjective agreement between different people.

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.

It's something I've mulled over for years. I even studied information theory briefly, but was disappointed to discover that Shannon's theory never touched on that.

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

No. At least not in terms of information theory. A rock is far more homogeneous and thus, a much more ordered system than a living entity or computer. Living things are very complex, not homogeneous at all. It's quite easy to alter a living system or a computer in minor ways and it stops functioning. Perhaps you were thinking of highly organized or highly constrained?

Good luck. My father has devoted some of his academic efforts to writing on "the meaning of meaning". Not a walk in the park I would imagine.

I would think that meaning in this context is dependent on mental abstraction.

I would think that meaning in any context is dependent on mental abstraction. Your father must be a deep thinker. Did he ever arrive at any insights or conclusions on the meaning of meaning?