Has consciousness been fully explained?

[rocketdodger]

Impossible to (meaningfully) debate the possibility that we are in a simulation with no connection whatsoever to the external world because if we were in a simulation with no connection whatsoever to the external world the words we are using wouldn't mean anything.

Ah, I see why you have been confused for so long -- you are one of those people that think meaning is objective. I also see that this is how Putnam's "deductive analysis" proof works.

This is a stupid position to have. Why?

Because it puts you in logical conundrums like the one you and Putnam are in. Consider:

1) If we cannot prove we are not a brain in a vat, then you have to admit we might be using words with no meaning. This is stupid, because clearly many words have meaning for many people.

2) If we can prove we are a brain in a vat (ala Putnam ) then the proof relies upon the unsupported assumption that meaning is objective. This is also stupid, because clearly many words mean different things for many people.

I also have to ask -- why on Earth would you think meaning is objective if you are not religious? Where would meaning come from, then?

 

[rocketdodger]

But where in the 'assignment of the boolean' process does it self-refer?

There is information processing - an assignment. You also have a function that references its object. Putting those two in proximity doesn't make SRIP. The assignment process isn't self-referencing. As I said, to me SRIP means a process that can use information about its own functioning as input; permitting elements of feedback and of recursion. A boolean assignment doesn't do that.

YMMV.

The "this" pointer and the boolean are both class data, though.

So most of what you said is actually satisfied -- the this pointer is information about the class functioning ( it's memory location ) that is used as input, and setting the boolean is feedback.

All that is missing is recursion, but I am not sure why recursion would be an essential ingredient.

 

[Frank Newgent]

delete

 

[!Kaggen]

delete

Speechless Frank, I understand....

 

[kowtaaia]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GX3GS5k7_R8

 

[dlorde]

The "this" pointer and the boolean are both class data, though.

So most of what you said is actually satisfied -- the this pointer is information about the class functioning ( it's memory location ) that is used as input, and setting the boolean is feedback.

[n.b. the class isn't in memory, the object instance is]. The memory location isn't information about the object's functioning, it's metadata about the object - where it is in memory, i.e. information about the memory management process and where it puts stuff. If the process is the boolean assignment, as you suggested previously, i.e. value x into location y, it doesn't self-reference - unless you want to call C++ assignment in general SRIP, because any instance data access in a function uses an implicit 'this' pointer. This would make SRIP effectively meaningless.

Maybe it's more clearly expressed as a 'self-monitoring process', e.g. simple homeostatic process control via +ve and -ve feedback would seem to be a fairly minimal example. Pixy may wish to differ (I don't know), but IMO this isn't any closer to consciousness than prions are to life, but I can see how it's useful as a starting point in helping define what we mean by consciousness, just as prions help us define what we mean by life.

All that is missing is recursion, but I am not sure why recursion would be an essential ingredient.

I don't recall saying it was.

 

[Belz...]

delete

Exterminate !

 

[Frank Newgent]

Is that a William S. Burroughs reference?

 

[AkuManiMani]

The concept we're discussing doesn't require eloquence to convey nor a high intellect to comprehend. Qualia is a term for the elements of experience. I find it hard to believe that you genuinely cannot understand that.

Who said I cannot ? I was (and still am) simply curious about how you think all those experiences are built. Saying "qualia is an element of experience, like 'cold' or 'green'" sounds really nice in a philosophical text, but my question about "square root" reveals a slight flaw in that explanation, I think: how do you decompose "square root" into its constituents, and what are they ?

This basically comes down to saying: What, exactly, are qualia ? I'm not asking for a definition. That's easy. See: "Dragons are fire-breathing reptiles". I'm asking you a) how they work, and b) how do we test for them. Because if you can't answer either a or b, then I submit you don't know whether or not they exist at all, as opposed to what you claim.

The entire point of the philosophical and scientific investigation of consciousness is to answer that very question. As you may recall, some time ago I mentioned the need for a comprehensive, scientific theory of consciousness able to adequately address certain kinds of questions with regard to it. As things stand now, qualia/experience/consciousness are a class of phenomena that, scientifically speaking, we have only a superficial understanding of. We need to understand how such phenomena figure into what we know of physics in general; only then will we be able to provide a scientific answer the question "What, exactly, are qualia?".

Think of it this way: qualia are the raw components of experience, while abstract thought is, generally speaking, the manner in which we cognitively organize our experiences.

Is abstract thought composed of qualia, too ?

If it helps, try thinking of qualia as information in subjective form and abstract thought as the processing of that information. Abstract thought is how our minds actively organize qualia.

If so, don't you see that "qualia", assuming they exist, has the same problem as "SRIP" ? Specifically, it's a thing that refers to itself. So if you have a problem with SRIP, why posit qualia, then ?

I'm not positing qualia so much as pointing them out and saying "This here is what needs explaining". SRIPs avoids the issue altogether and, by doing so, completely fails to explain anything about consciousness.

It wasn't arbitrary. "Numbers" is a term we use to refer to units of quantity; "Qualia" is a term we use to refer to gradations of experience. The point of the parallel was to convey that "qualia" is not a postulation but a label for something we know to exist.

"Numbers" don't exist, Aku. That's a poor choice of words.

"Numbers" -do- exist -- in our minds. In fact, they've had very real consequences on the development of human civilization.

So I should just assume that you're irrational enough to attempt to argue against a point you don't even understand?

You should assume that I'm arguing against the points I do understand, and asking you to help me understand the points I don't. But you're conflating the two. No wonder you're .

You're specifically arguing against "qualia" which is the very concept that you've repeatedly asked for clarification on.

 

[westprog]

Is that a William S. Burroughs reference?

No. Closer to Edgar Rice, if anything.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Impossible to (meaningfully) debate the possibility that we are in a simulation with no connection whatsoever to the external world because if we were in a simulation with no connection whatsoever to the external world the words we are using wouldn't mean anything.

Ah, I see why you have been confused for so long -- you are one of those people that think meaning is objective. I also see that this is how Putnam's "deductive analysis" proof works.

This is a stupid position to have. Why?

Because it puts you in logical conundrums like the one you and Putnam are in. Consider:

1) If we cannot prove we are not a brain in a vat, then you have to admit we might be using words with no meaning. This is stupid, because clearly many words have meaning for many people.

2) If we can prove we are a brain in a vat (ala Putnam ) then the proof relies upon the unsupported assumption that meaning is objective. This is also stupid, because clearly many words mean different things for many people.

I also have to ask -- why on Earth would you think meaning is objective if you are not religious? Where would meaning come from, then?

The word meaning has many meanings

To help out I suggest you think of "meaning" in this present context in a linguistic sense RD.

Meaning is inferred from objects or concepts expressed by words, phrases or sentences in semantics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning_(linguistics)

Meaning is communicated using words and forming sentences.

A quick definition of communication RD:

Communication is a process whereby meaning is defined and shared between living organisms. Communication requires a sender, a message, and an intended recipient, although the receiver need not be present or aware of the sender's intent to communicate at the time of communication; thus communication can occur across vast distances in time and space. Communication requires that the communicating parties share an area of communicative commonality. The communication process is complete once the receiver has understood the sender.

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

I've bolded the part you seem to be having a hard time with.

Were we (possibly) in a simulation with no connection whatsoever to the external world such an area of communicative commonality might be difficult to establish.

I hope that helps.

 

[Belz...]

Is that a William S. Burroughs reference?

It's a Dalek reference. You did a Cyberman one, so I obliged.

 

[Belz...]

The entire point of the philosophical and scientific investigation of consciousness is to answer that very question. As you may recall, some time ago I mentioned the need for a comprehensive, scientific theory of consciousness able to adequately address certain kinds of questions with regard to it. As things stand now, qualia/experience/consciousness are a class of phenomena that, scientifically speaking, we have only a superficial understanding of. We need to understand how such phenomena figure into what we know of physics in general; only then will we be able to provide a scientific answer the question "What, exactly, are qualia?".

I find it amusing that you're accusing me of being dishonest in this debate while you just ignored the part of my post that immediately followed the question you highlighted.

If it helps, try thinking of qualia as information in subjective form

Information in subjective form ? What exactly is that supposed to mean ? What's a subjective form ?

and abstract thought as the processing of that information.

Under that definition, ants are capable of abstract thought, although they can't add; and they certainly can't "square root". Your definition of "abstract thought" is too broad to answer my original question.

I'm not positing qualia so much as pointing them out and saying "This here is what needs explaining".

That's pretty much the same thing, only you pretend that they exist rather than show that they do. I'm sorry, but to me it's far from being as obvious as you claim, and I'm asking you to show me evidence that your claim is true before I even consider the term "qualia" in any way.

SRIPs avoids the issue altogether and, by doing so, completely fails to explain anything about consciousness.

Only if you assume that qualia exist in the first place -- that is, that SRIP doesn't explain consciousness.

"Numbers" -do- exist -- in our minds. In fact, they've had very real consequences on the development of human civilization.

Nice moving of goalposts. With that kind of reasoning, everything is qualia because everything exists in our minds.

You're specifically arguing against "qualia" which is the very concept that you've repeatedly asked for clarification on.

Not quite. I'm arguing that we can't use the term in any meaningful way until we can define it properly, and we can't define it until we show that what the term is meant to represent actually exists. That last part is the clarification I'm asking for.

 

[annnnoid]

2 cents:

…it may be that the ability to define the thing is itself an example of its existence. The inherent pitfalls of attempting to ask a thought to explain itself.

I’ve pointed out this issue before….and where it invariably extrapolates to. The intersection of science and revelation. It’s not theory, it’s fact. We are examining the truth of our own existence. That’s what this particular science is about….that’s what Belz is asking: what the hell is this thing qualia you’re talking about. An example of qualia is your ability to know what it is.

Your ability to know the truth of your own experience leads invariably to personal revelation. The meaning of religion if you want. You want science, go study ants. Nobody likes to go there, it doesn’t have any variety of existence that any science has any understanding of (which is why Belz is so confused by the thing [you’re not alone Belz]…and why the Pixy’s of the world would rather take refuge in something they think they understand [SRIP])….so it’s referred to vaguely as consciousness, subjective experience, qualia….lot’s of words that nobody really yet (remotely…according to many) understands the meaning of. Partly because the picture is still being painted. The meaning of the various words are still being created / discovered.

….except for one glaring fact: we all live the meaning of these things every single moment (which means, essentially, that we DO have some variety of ‘understanding’ [translated: the ability to process information of some kind in some way] of ‘something’ because we are obviously the functioning result of it)….so essentially we live something that we quite obviously are massively ignorant of…in whatever ways.

Would anyone like to venture a guess as to what the causes, implications, consequences of that are….or do skeptics simply prefer to stick their collective heads inside their collective delusional buts as usual, Scott Atran referred to it. It's called terminal rationalism.

Oooh, but that is harsh. Sure, it’s a generalization but for some reason skeptics just don’t seem to like to get their hands dirty. To know, and be known. I’m sure it must have something to do with such varieties of murky aphorisms.

Oh well….it’s a bright A.M. and my southern holiday has been canceled due to freezing rain from here to hell and back so I’m confined to meaningless meanderings upon hapless JREF forums. Hello, I suppose, to all those who, for whatever reasons may or may not have expected a different turn of events. Missed the show. Darn. Sounded like things were getting downright nasty. What fun….I guess. Not really my area of experience y’know. Maybe I’ll catch the next one. The odds being….one in from here to eternity (and back). But who else have I got to shake hands with? I would also say enormous somethings to you, because enormous is.

How….cryptic. Such is a trip down the rabbit hole. Go….there you will find qualia.

Question: What if Jesus had known about qualia. Do you think he’d have made a sermon about it. Like:

…”….yo, dude, what’s up. Qualia, do you know em? No…! Seek ye salvation...know thine own qualia. Amen…”....man, these folks sure got some ◊◊◊◊ to sort. Yo, Peter, gimme a slice of that fish. Got any wino...great. Man but I'm thirsty. Sure glad I took that Dale Carnegie course though. What good is a king if you can't speak, right?

 

[dlorde]

2 cents:

…it may be that the ability to define the thing is itself an example of its existence.

Just like any abstract concept? if we define a unicorn or a flying spaghetti monster it doesn't mean they exist, except as concepts.

Not sure that's worth 2 cents...

 

[rocketdodger]

I've bolded the part you seem to be having a hard time with.

Were we (possibly) in a simulation with no connection whatsoever to the external world such an area of communicative commonality might be difficult to establish.

Why?

I hope that helps.

Nope. In fact every new post of yours makes me wonder more and more how you can reach the conclusions you do.

 

[AkuManiMani]

You're specifically arguing against "qualia" which is the very concept that you've repeatedly asked for clarification on.

Not quite. I'm arguing that we can't use the term in any meaningful way until we can define it properly, and we can't define it until we show that what the term is meant to represent actually exists. That last part is the clarification I'm asking for.

...Belz, it's been repeatedly and painstakingly explained to you what is meant by the term "qualia". There is no question of whether or not it refers to something extant [i.e. experiences] so your objection on the grounds that we have to show that it "actually exists" is asinine. You've been extended the benefit of the doubt far beyond the point of rational credulity. At this point its fairly obvious that, intentionally or unintentionally, you're just plain obtuse. Quit wasting my time.

 

[Belz...]

I still find it amusing that you're accusing me of being dishonest in this debate while you just ignored most of my last post.

...Belz, it's been repeatedly and painstakingly explained to you what is meant by the term "qualia". There is no question of whether or not it refers to something extant [i.e. experiences] so your objection on the grounds that we have to show that it "actually exists" is asinine.

"Qualia" have not been defined to anybody's satisfaction except its proponents. You have not managed to answer my questions for clarifications except to utter some interesting word salad, twice. No testable hypothesis, no observation, nothing. All you have is assertion. Qualia are, and that's the end of it. Well, I don't buy it.

You've been extended the benefit of the doubt far beyond the point of rational credulity. At this point its fairly obvious that, intentionally or unintentionally, you're just plain obtuse. Quit wasting my time.

Like a kid constantly saying "not so" once he understands he can "counter" everything his parents say by uttering it repeatedly, repeating over and over that your inability to answer my questions properly is somehow my fault doesn't make it so except in your mind.

 

[Philosaur]

As a way of getting my bearings in this thread, and possibly shedding some light on how each of us is thinking about qualia, subjective experience, and consciousness, I'd like it if we can answer these two yes/no questions:

Are qualia a necessary consequence of consciousness?

(I.e., wherever we find consciousness, there will we find qualia. Symbolically: C --> Q)

Is consciousness a necessary consequence of qualia?

(I.e., wherever we find qualia, there will we find consciousness. Symbolically: Q --> C)

I want to know what sorts of logical entailment, if any, different participants see between qualia and consciousness.

ETA: On second thought, I'm not sure this will get us anywhere since "qualia" is still an ill-defined term.

 

[AkuManiMani]

I still find it amusing that you're accusing me of being dishonest in this debate while you just ignored most of my last post.

...Belz, it's been repeatedly and painstakingly explained to you what is meant by the term "qualia". There is no question of whether or not it refers to something extant [i.e. experiences] so your objection on the grounds that we have to show that it "actually exists" is asinine.

"Qualia" have not been defined to anybody's satisfaction except its proponents. You have not managed to answer my questions for clarifications except to utter some interesting word salad, twice. No testable hypothesis, no observation, nothing. All you have is assertion. Qualia are, and that's the end of it. Well, I don't buy it.

You've been extended the benefit of the doubt far beyond the point of rational credulity. At this point its fairly obvious that, intentionally or unintentionally, you're just plain obtuse. Quit wasting my time.

Like a kid constantly saying "not so" once he understands he can "counter" everything his parents say by uttering it repeatedly, repeating over and over that your inability to answer my questions properly is somehow my fault doesn't make it so except in your mind.

Belz, is there a word in your native tongue for "obstinate blockhead" and is it considered a productive pastime to attempt to engage such individuals in reasonable discussion?