I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[Belz...]

I've been working on this for over a year. I began with computational theory. It wasn't adequate so I moved on to cognitive theory.

That's nice. "Trust me" is your argument ?

 

[Nonpareil]

Well that's semantics

As I said earlier, yes.

I tend to use very clearly-delineated definitions for this type of thing. It usually helps to avoid confusion.

 

[Nonpareil]

There's no circle. Every single project to build AI using computational theory has failed. And from this failure you conclude that the brain is definitely based on computation? Does that strike you as something of a violation of common sense? As I've said, I know how computers work from circuits to software. If I could build an AI using any programming language, any compiler, or any computer hardware; I would do it. I'm telling you I can't and the fact that no one else has should tell you something.

Flight was impossible until the Wright brothers, then. Glad we're clear on that.

 

[barehl]

That's not circular reasoning. That's what "computer" means. It means "Turing-equivalent". The brain is demonstrably at least Turing-equivalent, because it can do what a Turing machine does. It is therefore a computer.

I've actually been in this situation before. When I was taking calculus, I turned in a paper. When I got it back, every problem was marked wrong. Yet, when we went over the answers, every one was right. So, after class I asked about this odd situation. My calculus instructor flatly stated that I didn't draw out the graphs for each problem. So, I pointed out that there had been no mention of drawing graphs.

My instructor said, "Well, you can't do the problems without drawing the graphs."

It was then that I realized that my instructor assumed that I had copied the answers from someone else. In reality I had done each of the problems myself. I hadn't drawn the graphs because I hadn't needed to. But, I realized that I couldn't explain something that my calculus professor was not capable of doing. By her reasoning there were only two possibilities: either I cheated or I got the answers by magic. Once again, I am unable to explain something that someone else is not capable of.

 

[Nonpareil]

<snip irrelevancy>

Once again, I am unable to explain something that someone else is not capable of.

That's wonderful.

The brain remains a computer, by definition and demonstration.

 

[Myriad]

Barehl, if the human brain is not subject to the halting problem, then you, being equipped with such a brain, should be able to definitively determine whether any given program will halt.

I have in mind the following program: iterate through the successive even integers starting with 6, testing to determine whether each is a Goldbach number (an even number that is the sum of two primes) by iterating as needed through the possible prime addends less than the number itself. If it finds two primes that sum to the number, move on to the next; if not, after exhausting all possible prime addends, the program halts.

If you can prove whether or not this program will halt, you will not only have given weight to your claim to have discovered that the brain is not subject to the halting problem, but will no doubt be eligible for multiple mathematics prizes likely including the Fields Medal for this achievement. I sincerely hope you can deliver on this request, and that you mention my name in your acceptance speeches.

 

[annnnoid]

I've mentioned this before. In fact, I've talked about it at such length, regarding Christof Koch's work on the subject, that I'm boggled that you all don't remember it. Consciousness is computational, but my PC is not conscious. The key for actual consciousness is that it is an integrated computational system.

Your PC is not an integrated computational system? So what, exactly, is? You are quite clearly claiming to have identified what you call ‘THE key’. You’ve even spoken about it at enormous ‘length’ (I’m betting you can’t produce a single link to any of these extensive essays).

So…what precise level of integration is it that differentiates what is conscious from what is not? What specific variety of ‘integration’ is required for a system to achieve consciousness?

It’s your (typically useless) theory. Explain it. Support it. Produce evidence (… I, for one, will bet on pigs flying).

You know nothing about computer or cognitive science.

Barehl seems quite literate. He asked a bunch of questions. I’m betting he could answer every one of them intelligently.

Can you? Here’s the questions again (you ignored them first time):

What exactly do you know about computers?
Can you draw a logical circuit using gates?
Are you familiar with Lambda calculus?
Are you familiar with predicate calculus?
What is the extent of your AI programming?

"Consciousness is computation" is one of the single most evidentially-supported claims in the history of science. Literally everything that we know about the brain supports it.

What is consciousness?

There is no definition (you’ve certainly never provided one beyond ‘what isn’t there when a person’s head is cut off’).

How is ‘this thing that no one can define’ produced by the brain?

No one knows (you’ve never produced any evidence to support your ridiculous claims that this process is understood [I’ll remind you that MudPhud, for one, agreed that we simply do not know the mechanism by which the brain produces consciousness]).

Wow…do we ever know a lot about the brain / consciousness!

I repeat, without any exaggeration whatsoever: literally everything we know about the brain supports it.

How about we refer to Henry Markram to provide us all with some illustration of just how much of ‘EVERYTHING’ we actually know about the brain.

Who is Henry Markram?...he’s the director of the Blue Brain Project…which is currently at the forefront of international cognitive research.

Even building on McKiernan’s single-neuron models is a fiendishly complicated task. “For many neurons, we don’t understand well the complement of ion channels within them, how they work together to produce electrical activity, how they change over development or injury,” she says. “At the next level, we have even less knowledge about how these cells connect, or how they’re constantly reaching out, retracting or changing their strength.” It’s ignorance all the way down.
“For sure, what we have is a tiny, tiny fraction of what we need,” says Markram. Worse still, experimentally mapping out every molecule, cell and connection is completely unfeasible in terms of cost, technical requirements and motivation.

“Ignorance all the way down”…”a tiny, tiny fraction of what we need”. Wow. EVERYTHING we know sounds kind of…pathetic.

Nothing that we know about the brain contradicts it.

…a few centuries back there were all these folks who kept screaming that the world was flat…cause nothing that was then known about the earth contradicted that blindingly obvious fact. As we now know, there was lots they didn’t know. As we can see from what Markram said…there is lots we don’t know.

Is there anyone…anyone at all… who can provide a consensus definition of consciousness?

Nope.

Is there anyone… anyone at all… who can explain the relationship between consciousness and the physical activity of the brain?

Nope.

…any new evidence Nonpareil?

Nope.

Ignorance…all…the…way…down.

We can point to the parts of the brain that compute visual signals, and we can decode these computations.

Why don’t the assembled participants take a look at that link and enjoy a good laugh. That piece of roadkill on the right is actually supposed to be a factual representation of the image on the left.

Is this what you call decoding Nonpariel?

It is worth pointing out that everything from a cockroach on up processes visual signals. It’s lower order cognitive activity at best.

Why don’t you try something truly challenging. Point me to a scanning process that can explicitly determine when any individual is processing the mindboggling complexity involved in the mathematical function:

1+1

I do apologize for this unfair challenge. 1+1 is something that only a truly advanced intelligence … found in exclusive bastions of genius such as your local kindergarten… can be expected to achieve. But give it a try…I’m sure everyone will be really impressed.

…yeah, I know.

WE UNDERSTAND MORE EVERYDAY AND WE KNOW SO MUCH AND SOMEDAY WE’LL BE ABLE TO DO IT JUST YOU WAIT AND SEE!

The brain is a computer. Every day, we understand more of it.

Halleluiah… Halleluiah… Halleluiah…the messiah cometh!

The brain is a computer. Consciousness comes from the brain.

Nobody knows what consciousness is…nobody knows how the brain produces it. Any new evidence to present Nonpareil?

…no, didn’t think so.

NOTE: Vague car analogies do not qualify as science.

 

[punshhh]

No. By any meaningful definition of 'simulation' it is not.
Once your computation reaches a fidelity where it is actually conscious, it is no longer a simulation.

How do you know it is not a dumb mimic of consciousness?

- The moment a flight simulator actually takes off, it becomes an aircraft.

Poor analogy, we know when something is actually flying, we don't know when something is actually conscious(apart from our control), we just assume it when we say it is.

 

[Nonpareil]

Your PC is not an integrated computational system? So what, exactly, is?

You would be best served by reading the articles for yourself.

You are quite clearly claiming to have identified what you call ‘THE key’.

I have identified nothing and have never claimed such. I am pointing out that others have identified something which matches all known experimental data and offers a rather neat explanation for it.

Barehl seems quite literate. He asked a bunch of questions. I’m betting he could answer every one of them intelligently.

Can you? Here’s the questions again (you ignored them first time)

Because none of them are relevant, and I am not interested in playing either of your games. Internet ego-stroking is not what I am here for.

What is consciousness?

The state of awareness. The ability to experience. However you wish to phrase it, it is the ability to feel something.

It isn't actually that complicated.

There is no definition (you’ve certainly never provided one beyond ‘what isn’t there when a person’s head is cut off’).

Correction: there is no definition that you, personally, will accept, because you have an allergy to properly defined terms. Vague, airy concepts are your only defense against actual refutation.

How about we refer to Henry Markram to provide us all with some illustration of just how much of ‘EVERYTHING’ we actually know about the brain.

Who is Henry Markram?...he’s the director of the Blue Brain Project…which is currently at the forefront of international cognitive research.

Even building on McKiernan’s single-neuron models is a fiendishly complicated task. “For many neurons, we don’t understand well the complement of ion channels within them, how they work together to produce electrical activity, how they change over development or injury,” she says. “At the next level, we have even less knowledge about how these cells connect, or how they’re constantly reaching out, retracting or changing their strength.” It’s ignorance all the way down.
“For sure, what we have is a tiny, tiny fraction of what we need,” says Markram. Worse still, experimentally mapping out every molecule, cell and connection is completely unfeasible in terms of cost, technical requirements and motivation.

“Ignorance all the way down”…”a tiny, tiny fraction of what we need”. Wow. EVERYTHING we know sounds kind of…pathetic.

You do realize that the Blue Brain Project is an attempt to build a functional copy of an entire brain, yes? And that I have never argued that the brain is not an enormously complex machine? And that the brain being enormously complex, and requiring a lot of work to pull apart at a cellular level to such an extent that it can be replicated, does not in any way indicate that the brain is not a computer or that consciousness is not computational, yes?

...Probably not.

Oh, and by the way: "ignorance all the way down" is a quote from Ed Yong, not Henry Markram. Ed Yong is a journalist, not a neuroscientist.

Meanwhile, Henry Markram's entire work is based on the fact that the brain is a computer and can be mechanically modeled, even though doing so is quite difficult. The very existence of the Blue Brain Project contradicts what you are trying to argue, let alone the fact that it is making progress.

Why don’t you try something truly challenging. Point me to a scanning process that can explicitly determine when any individual is processing the mindboggling complexity involved in the mathematical function:

1+1

We do know which part of the brain handles quantitative reasoning, yes.

How do you know it is not a dumb mimic of consciousness?

By having a clear definition of the properties of consciousness and observing them (or their absence) in the simulation.

The same way you know anything is a simulation, really.

 

[dlorde]

... Every single project to build AI using computational theory has failed. And from this failure you conclude that the brain is definitely based on computation?

No. There are some useful, even flexible, AIs - such as IBM Watson; however they are not designed to be conscious or specifically mimic the brain, but to solve certain classes of problem, which they do very well.

There are plenty of ongoing projects looking at robotic learning, communication, and interaction, but I don't know of any serious attempts to build a conscious AI - perhaps you could provide some links? - I think we've hardly started; I would suggest that failures to this point just means they're doing it wrong. We've only recently had the prospect of assembling enough processing power, enough information on how the brain achieves it, and access to enough data resource (i.e. the internet), to make it a plausible proposition.

My current view is that a neuromorphic architecture is probably the best way to go about it. But such an architecture can be emulated on a more conventional digital computing substrate.

I don't think there's much specific commercial interest in making a conscious AI, and the major brain projects I'm aware of are mainly state financed and aimed more towards medical modelling, but there are one or two independently wealthy individuals who might be interested in trying to use the results of such projects to generate a conscious AI.

 

[annnnoid]

I have identified nothing and have never claimed such. I am pointing out that others have identified something which matches all known experimental data and offers a rather neat explanation for it.

The key for actual consciousness is that it is an integrated computational system.

…so now you’re claiming you didn’t actually write those words. Ok then.

Because none of them are relevant, and I am not interested in playing either of your games. Internet ego-stroking is not what I am here for.

You accused Barehl of being totally ignorant. Answering the questions will establish quite clearly whether or not the emperor actually does have any clothes. But if you can’t answer them… well, that is answer enough.

The state of awareness. The ability to experience. However you wish to phrase it, it is the ability to feel something.

It isn't actually that complicated.

I doubt that it is really necessary to point out how scientifically worthless this definition is. Again, it quite clearly establishes how utterly useless your arguments actually are.

As I said, there is no consensus definition of consciousness. Anywhere. “However you wish to phrase it” does not, in fact, qualify as a definition.

Correction: there is no definition that you, personally, will accept, because you have an allergy to properly defined terms. Vague, airy concepts are your only defense against actual refutation.

You define consciousness… arguably the single most significant unanswered question in science… as “however you wish to phrase it…” etc. … and you have the nerve to accuse me of using vague, airy concepts. Clearly, the emperor truly does have no clothes.

We do know which part of the brain handles quantitative reasoning, yes.

…no we most unconditionally do not. And if you had bothered to read that entire document and if you had the slightest interest in actually learning anything at all about what you’re talking about you would understand that fact quite clearly as well as why it is a fact. Modularity of mind is crap. Even Koch has utterly dismissed it. That paper that you presented is full of holes from beginning to end. Not to mention that in no way shape or form does it suggest that it is possible to explicitly determine the cognitive event described by the symbols 1+1.

…that was the challenge, remember. 1+1 is about as simple as mathematics gets. And you can’t even find a technology that has that rudimentary capability.

Just out of curiosity… did you read the technique they used in that study? They opened up the patients skull and attached electrodes directly to the brain. Here’s a trick question: Do you think they had any explicit idea what was going on in the rest of the brain while they were adjudicating the specific area’s quantized by the electrodes? Do you think they had any idea whether anything at all was happening anywhere else that might in some way, shape, or form, be related to this variety of cognitive activity? To what degree were they (or could they be) even monitoring additional activity?

What does that mean? Well, it means (gasp) that those folks are idiots. Hard to believe isn’t it, that there are scientists who are simply stupid (here’s a hint…anything under the banner of Kurzweil is immediately suspect). I know…It’s called critical thinking. Skeptics are supposed to be good at it.

…but don’t let all that derail your precious gospel of scientific delusion. We know lots about lots and someday we’ll know everything. Maybe we’ll even know what knowing is. But hang on…what does that even mean? Better be careful, sometimes scientists are simply not the right people to ask.

 

[Nonpareil]

You accused Barehl of being totally ignorant.

No. I quite clearly and simply pointed out that he does not know computer science as well as he thinks he does, because he is asking questions that make no sense and ignoring basic definitions.

I doubt that it is really necessary to point out how scientifically worthless this definition is.

If you say so.

As I said, there is no consensus definition of consciousness. Anywhere.

Saying it doesn't make it true.

…no we most unconditionally do not.

Well, yes. We do. You can rant about it being otherwise all you like, but the evidence is right there. This is a part of the brain which shows spikes in organized activity when, and only when, the subject is utilizing quantitative reasoning.

Modularity of mind is crap. Even Koch has utterly dismissed it.

Except that he hasn't. It would be rather silly if he had, because modularity of mind is demonstrably true. It is just the concept that the brain is composed of distinct neural structures which each have explicit purposes, and this is exactly what we see when we look at the brain.

Not to mention that in no way shape or form does it suggest that it is possible to explicitly determine the cognitive event described by the symbols 1+1.

I never said that it did, because I honestly don't care to play your little hoop-jumping games when all you do is run away when someone actually manages it.

When evidence that explicitly indicates that the brain is a computer is presented, you flee.

When evidence that explicitly decodes some of the computation taking place is presented, with the only limitation being the power and speed of the interpreting machinery, you flee.

All you do - all you have ever done - is present the god-of-the-gaps fallacy in an increasingly tiny gap.

Just out of curiosity… did you read the technique they used in that study? They opened up the patients skull and attached electrodes directly to the brain. Here’s a trick question: Do you think they had any explicit idea what was going on in the rest of the brain while they were adjudicating the specific area’s quantized by the electrodes? Do you think they had any idea whether anything at all was happening anywhere else that might in some way, shape, or form, be related to this variety of cognitive activity? To what degree were they (or could they be) even monitoring additional activity?

Here's another trick question: do you think that there is no such thing as methodology, and that researchers explicitly take things like this into account?

 

[Belz...]

Here's another trick question: do you think that there is no such thing as methodology, and that researchers explicitly take things like this into account?

Annnnoid laughs at your science, earthling.

 

[tsig]

Annnnoid laughs at your science, earthling.

I have seen no evidence of humor in his posts.

 

[annnnoid]

…you wrote this…

The key for actual consciousness is that it is an integrated computational system.

…then you categorically denied having said it…

I have identified nothing and have never claimed such.

Then you clearly and explicitly accused Barehl of complete ignorance…

You know nothing about computer or cognitive science.

…and now you’re denying that as well…

No. I quite clearly and simply pointed out that he does not know computer science as well as he thinks he does, because he is asking questions that make no sense and ignoring basic definitions.

If you say so.

I don’t need to say so. What you wrote speaks entirely for itself. It is unconditional garbage.

Saying it doesn't make it true.

…no…what makes it true is your complete and utter lack of any ability to provide a coherent response. You’ve got no coherent definition so your claim is garbage.

<snip>

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited for Rule 0

 

[MRC_Hans]

Once again: if consciousness is computation, a simulation of consciousness, which is also computation, becomes emulation and thus is conscious. The difference is that a flight simulator doesn't have actual wings or air to fly in, while a simulated consciousness has actual computation.

*shrug* OK, you can define it thus. And?

A simulated consciousness (in a computer) does not have a body to experience with.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

How do you know it is not a dumb mimic of consciousness?

How I know you (or I) are not?

Poor analogy, we know when something is actually flying, we don't know when something is actually conscious(apart from our control), we just assume it when we say it is.

You do have a point there:
Flying is objective, consciousness, however, is an arbitrary definition.

Hans

 

[Nonpareil]

…you wrote this…

…then you categorically denied having said it…

The things that you quote illustrate quite neatly that you are wrong.

You seem to have an issue with assigning extra meanings to what I say. I no more "identified the key" to consciousness than I can take credit for identifying the key to integrative calculus. I am just telling you what others have said, and stating that I agree.

At this point, I think it is fairly obvious that you have a sort of fixation on me, personally. You seek to turn every discussion into an attack on me, and seek to nitpick everything that I say, adding subtext which I never intended and then attempting to force me to admit to saying things that I never said.

While I find your interest somewhat flattering, in a strange sort of way, it does get rather disruptive.

Then you clearly and explicitly accused Barehl of complete ignorance…

No. I quite clearly and explicitly stated outright, and demonstrated, that he does not understand the basic principles of cognitive or computer science. An inability to understand what "Turing-equivalent" means, what a computer is, or what the halting problem is fits that criteria quite nicely.

Pointing out that someone lacks understanding of a certain topic is not equivalent to saying that they are "completely ignorant". Again, you are attempting to turn plainly factual statements into slander.

…no…what makes it true is your complete and utter lack of any ability to provide a coherent response. You’ve got no coherent definition so your claim is garbage.

There is an extremely simple and coherent definition. I just gave it. Consciousness is the capability to experience. It is the ability to feel.

Your issue is not that my definition is not coherent, but that you dislike it. As mentioned previously, you have to keep terms vaguely defined and hazy, and, ideally, as "philosophically" complex as possible. The moment that things are nailed down is the moment that all your claims are exposed for the nonsense that they are.

For this reason, you resort to phrases like "science will never understand human nature", as if that statement actually has any meaning. You assign dozens of extraneous, hazy add-ons to the idea of consciousness that are not actually part of its definition. You categorically reject the idea of there being a workable definition, not because there isn't one, but because you dislike the implications of one existing.

I'm afraid, however, that the universe is not actually particularly complicated. It's certainly complex - there are a lot of moving parts working in it, and keeping track of all of them is difficult - but very little in it is actually complicated. Rocks fall because of gravity. Stars burn, atoms spin, electricity blazes, and minds think because of understandable forces playing out according to established rules.

There's no magic in the brain, or in the mind, or in the soul, because souls don't exist. Magic doesn't exist, either. The universe doesn't work like that. There is no life after death. Out of body experiences are just the brain hiccuping. Psychic powers are pure fantasy. And so on and so on.

At this point, it's late and I'm quite tired, so I'll just leave off with a favorite quote of mine and the statement that I'm done with this little tangent, and we can get back to actually discussing the computational nature of the brain:

"Haven't you got any romance in your soul?" said Magrat plaintively.
"No," said Granny. "I ain't. And stars don't care what you wish, and magic don't make things better, and no one doesn't get burnt who sticks their hand in a fire. If you want to amount to anything as a witch, Magrat Garlick, you got to learn three things: what's real, what's not real, and what's the difference."
- Terry Pratchett, Witches Abroad

 

[punshhh]

And you have no reason for doing so.

I have no reason for not confining thought? You may be happy to confine thought on things not understood, you do it regularly. I prefer to be open minded.

Which remains nonsensical and meaningless.

I'm considering something not understood, the internal state of consciousness. Feel free to confine thought, I won't be.

That's wonderful.

It's still not conscious.

Yes it's not conscious by the archaic clunking definition of consciousness handed down to us by the Victorians( I.e. Self conscious awareness as experienced by a human), feel free to confine your thought to this.

Yes, you can.

Idealism falls apart the moment you have any sort of meaningful definition of the word "is". We've been over this.

And as I pointed out at the time, this only applies to attempts to understand an idealist universe. Not to the principle, or the reality out there. In order to refute idealism you will have to show our primary knowledge*, to be secondary to some other knowledge. Because if you can't, logic dictates that the medium of primary knowledge may be the primary state of existence, there is no way around this is there?

*By primary knowledge I am referring the the personal experience of existing experienced by a human, a state clearly experienced through the medium of mind.

 

[Nonpareil]

I have no reason for not confining thought?

In the same way that you would have no reason for suggesting that a pocket calculator is actually doing its calculations in the plastic rather than the processor, yes.

You may be happy to confine thought on things not understood, you do it regularly.

We understand where thought comes from.

You can deny this all you like, but the fact remains that we know it. We can look at the brain, see the activity taking place, and interpret this appropriately.

I prefer to be open minded.

There is a difference between being open-minded and proposing nonsensical ideas with no basis in the evidence, no mechanism by which they could possibly function, and a complete lack of a coherent definition.

Yes it's not conscious by the archaic clunking definition of consciousness handed down to us by the Victorians( I.e. Self conscious awareness as experienced by a human), feel free to confine your thought to this.

There is no meaningful definition of consciousness, Victorian or otherwise, which can be applied to the cell.

And as I pointed out at the time, this only applies to attempts to understand an idealist universe. Not to the principle, or the reality out there. In order to refute idealism you will have to show our primary knowledge*, to be secondary to some other knowledge. Because if you can't, logic dictates that the medium of primary knowledge may be the primary state of existence, there is no way around this is there?

*By primary knowledge I am referring the the personal experience of existing experienced by a human, a state clearly experienced through the medium of mind.

We've been over this. Your idea of "primary knowledge" is not a defense. The moment you have a functional definition of "is" (and, by extension, "exists"), idealism collapses - as even an idealist cannot deny that, in addition to knowing that we exist, we know that we experience something.

That something behaves exactly, in every situation, as though it is a material universe. It has every characteristic of a material universe and none of a non-material universe. There is no meaningful way to say that it is not a material universe. By definition, it is a material universe.

That is what "is" means.