More Dead Horse Abuse : Slow Motion and Consciousness?

[rocketdodger]

A big sticking point in all of our threads on consciousness has been the "rate" at which thoughts occur, or the "speed" an entity thinks. In particular, many individuals have expressed the sentiment that they might not consider an entity thinking orders of magnitude slower than humans to be conscious.

Watching the olympics, they showed some ultra slow motion footage of speed skating. In this footage, it occured to me, the skaters look like slow sculptures. They do not even look like they are alive.

And if one were to somehow envision their thoughts, it would be incomprehensibly slow. If you could somehow visualize the action potentials traveling along their neurons' membranes, it would actually be perceptible -- you would see them slowly propagating down the axons and dendrites, etc.

Yet, those skaters are clearly conscious when viewed in normal time footage. So logic tells us they are also conscious when viewed from slow time footage. I don't think anyone would say "no, they are no longer conscious, because they are moving so slow."

So my question is this -- why is a human conscious when viewed from a frame of reference orders of magnitude faster (from a slow motion camera) whereas anything else (like a computer) that runs at a similar relative rate to us (orders of magnitude slower) is automatically labeled as "not conscious" due to this difference in rates?

 

[Nonpareil]

So my question is this -- why is a human conscious when viewed from a frame of reference orders of magnitude faster (from a slow motion camera) whereas anything else (like a computer) that runs at a similar relative rate to us (orders of magnitude slower) is automatically labeled as "not conscious" due to this difference in rates?

Because we're the ones deciding what's conscious and what's not, and we have arbitrary standards that change depending on how we feel on the subject. Even if computers operated at the same speed that we do, I'm pretty sure that most people would deny that they are conscious.

 

[rocketdodger]

Even if computers operated at the same speed that we do, I'm pretty sure that most people would deny that they are conscious.

That isn't the issue.

The issue is that, for instance, many people think a simulation of your brain carried out by monks in a monstary on pen and paper that takes hundreds of years for even a single synaptic interaction to take place is decisively not conscious because of how long it takes to happen, not because of some fundamental flaw in the logic of the simulation.

Whether or not a thing is conscious due to other factors shouldn't be conflated with the timescale issue.

 

[Nonpareil]

That isn't the issue.

The issue is that, for instance, many people think a simulation of your brain carried out by monks in a monstary on pen and paper that takes hundreds of years for even a single synaptic interaction to take place is decisively not conscious because of how long it takes to happen, not because of some fundamental flaw in the logic of the simulation.

Whether or not a thing is conscious due to other factors shouldn't be conflated with the timescale issue.

My point is that it isn't really the timescale that makes people think that they aren't conscious. For example, the computer is considered not-conscious because it's a computer, not because it operates at a different speed. The paper simulation is considered not-conscious because it's paper, and not alive.
I think you're imagining a problem that isn't there.

More later: I have something else I want to say here, but I have to leave in a minute.

 

[The True Scotsman]

I believe the timescale issue would come in when judging the lifespan of the entity. If the entity in question doesn't live long enough for the series of thoughts to occur that would be considered consciousness, then we would have to consider it to not have consciousness. Also, I would add that for some entities, what we would consider consciousness, would be impossible for these entities to accomplish no matter how long the lifespan of the entities were (at least as far as we can see).

 

[Nonpareil]

Mmkay, back.

Now, about the slow-mo analyzation: I believe that the pictures are not considered conscious simply because we know that they are images on a screen, and not the actual people taken and slowed down hundreds of times.

However, I do see your point. Suppose that we humans discovered a race of entities like those in Terry Pratchett's Strata: a species whose lifespans were so long, and whose minds and bodies operated so slowly, that when a human ship found one they were unable to tell if it was dead or alive. We would consider such a race not-conscious simply because no human in a hundred generations would ever see evidence of its being alive. For all intents and purposes, it would be a statue, and, as we would see no reason to believe that it thinks, we would treat it as such.
The fact of the matter is that we humans can only judge by what we experience, and thus if we never experience a situation which would indicate consciousness - a situation where we interact with the being - we would not be able to judge it as being conscious.

 

[rocketdodger]

My point is that it isn't really the timescale that makes people think that they aren't conscious. For example, the computer is considered not-conscious because it's a computer, not because it operates at a different speed. The paper simulation is considered not-conscious because it's paper, and not alive.
I think you're imagining a problem that isn't there.

More later: I have something else I want to say here, but I have to leave in a minute.

I would be inclined to agree with you, except that a few people have specifically voiced the opinion that the timescale is what is irking them.

You can read through the last few consciousness threads if you don't believe me (although I wouldn't wish that torture on you).

 

[Nonpareil]

I would be inclined to agree with you, except that a few people have specifically voiced the opinion that the timescale is what is irking them.

You can read through the last few consciousness threads if you don't believe me (although I wouldn't wish that torture on you).

No, thanks. I wouldn't touch those with a ten-foot pole.

Although I guess I kind of have...

 

[AlBell]

It seems to me your example misses the point that in a slow motion depiction of a real event, all physics and events have also been slowed equally.

That is not the case for 'slow motion consciousness' purported to occur in our real time world.

 

[rocketdodger]

Mmkay, back.

Now, about the slow-mo analyzation: I believe that the pictures are not considered conscious simply because we know that they are images on a screen, and not the actual people taken and slowed down hundreds of times.

However, I do see your point. Suppose that we humans discovered a race of entities like those in Terry Pratchett's Strata: a species whose lifespans were so long, and whose minds and bodies operated so slowly, that when a human ship found one they were unable to tell if it was dead or alive. We would consider such a race not-conscious simply because no human in a hundred generations would ever see evidence of its being alive. For all intents and purposes, it would be a statue, and, as we would see no reason to believe that it thinks, we would treat it as such.
The fact of the matter is that we humans can only judge by what we experience, and thus if we never experience a situation which would indicate consciousness - a situation where we interact with the being - we would not be able to judge it as being conscious.

Well my question isn't about what we would judge if we encountered such a thing in person.

It is about what our logical conclusion is after we know all the facts of the matter.

So in your example above, the issue would be whether or not we consider such a race conscious once we know their minds (and bodies) function on an entirely different timescale than our own mental processes.

Or, in other words, if we accumulated data about them for millions of years, would a future human, upon playing that data back at an appropriate rate to see actual changes in these creatures, reach the conclusion that they are indeed conscious and we just can't see it with our unaided eyes?

The crux of the matter is that while I agree with you about our somewhat arbitrary judgements that are flavored by only what we can experience, there are a great many people (the vast majority of the world's population, in fact) that equivocate such arbitrary judgements with rational thought that is based in the truths of logic and mathematics.

I think it is fine to say "that creature doesn't seem conscious to me -- look how slow it is!" I don't think it is fine to say "There are good logical reasons for why such a slow creature cannot be conscious," because that is simply a false statement. There are no such logical reasons.

So what we have had in previous threads is a few people, who are not well versed in mathematics or computer science, arguing that the ideas being thrown around by those that are well versed in those areas are somehow wrong, because it just doesn't "seem right" that a creature with such a slow thought process could be conscious.

But the fact that it doesn't "seem right" from a judgement point of view has nothing to do with whether or not the ideas are logically and mathematically correct. I just want certain people to admit that yes, what "seems wrong" may in fact be correct when more information is exposed.

 

[rocketdodger]

It seems to me your example misses the point that in a slow motion depiction of a real event, all physics and events have also been slowed equally.

That is not the case for 'slow motion consciousness' purported to occur in our real time world.

Why is that relevant?

In every example of a slower consciousness that has been discussed on any of these threads, the events that are exposed to this consciousness are also on a slower timescale.

Nobody has ever said that a creature with thought processes a million times slower than humans would be aware of the buzzing of a fly. On the contrary, we have all said that it would instead be aware of things like the movement of stars or geological phenomena -- things that we as humans have no access to, unaided, because of how fast our thought processes occur.

 

[Nonpareil]

Or, in other words, if we accumulated data about them for millions of years, would a future human, upon playing that data back at an appropriate rate to see actual changes in these creatures, reach the conclusion that they are indeed conscious and we just can't see it with our unaided eyes?

Once we have proof that they do think and react to stimuli? Yes, I would say so. Why not?

So what we have had in previous threads is a few people, who are not well versed in mathematics or computer science, arguing that the ideas being thrown around by those that are well versed in those areas are somehow wrong, because it just doesn't "seem right" that a creature with such a slow thought process could be conscious.

Relativity often doesn't "seem right" either. Light does some funky stuff. But it is what it is, and saying that it doesn't seem right doesn't change that.

But the fact that it doesn't "seem right" from a judgement point of view has nothing to do with whether or not the ideas are logically and mathematically correct. I just want certain people to admit that yes, what "seems wrong" may in fact be correct when more information is exposed.

Then we have an accord.

 

[Nonpareil]

It seems to me your example misses the point that in a slow motion depiction of a real event, all physics and events have also been slowed equally.

That is not the case for 'slow motion consciousness' purported to occur in our real time world.

It would simply experience only those events which took place on a timescale of sufficient size to interact with it. For example, in Strata, the slow-time beings interacted with continents, mountains, and even planets and stars rather than the things on them.

 

[Beerina]

A big sticking point in all of our threads on consciousness has been the "rate" at which thoughts occur, or the "speed" an entity thinks. In particular, many individuals have expressed the sentiment that they might not consider an entity thinking orders of magnitude slower than humans to be conscious.

I presume it's related to chemistry, which is to say, to mass and the electrical force, which defines the rate of interactions from which, presumably, somehow our conscious mind arises. And much thinking isn't reliant on the consciousness anyway, per se. How much of what flies out of your mouth did you consciously assemble, and how much did you just think up unconsciously and pass through your conscious mind for final approval on its way out?

Watching the olympics, they showed some ultra slow motion footage of speed skating. In this footage, it occured to me, the skaters look like slow sculptures. They do not even look like they are alive.

And if one were to somehow envision their thoughts, it would be incomprehensibly slow. If you could somehow visualize the action potentials traveling along their neurons' membranes, it would actually be perceptible -- you would see them slowly propagating down the axons and dendrites, etc.

Yes, but that's what training is for -- you build in automatic knowledge you can recall immediately without having to think of it, and physical ability is no different from memorizing a multiplication table. There are higher level movements, and coordinated low-level movements, like the gracefulness of a pianist's hand movements.

Much of what the training goes for is to learn all this stuff at the subconscious, automatic level. When a pro basketball player takes a shot, even though the strategy to get to that spot on the court may be the result of conscious theorizing with the coach with 30s left in the game, the actual jump shot is on autopilot, taking advantage of quite literally millions of practice shots they've taken in the previous 20+ years of their life.


I read somewhere a typical Olympic athlete has on the order of 20,000 hours of practice by the time they get there.

So my question is this -- why is a human conscious when viewed from a frame of reference orders of magnitude faster (from a slow motion camera) whereas anything else (like a computer) that runs at a similar relative rate to us (orders of magnitude slower) is automatically labeled as "not conscious" due to this difference in rates?

Computers are labeled as "not conscious" because they don't do anything that would be considered as conscious. The best humans can do right now is something akin to the "Turing Test", where we make an educated guess that something is sufficiently like a human in behavior that it, probably, has consciousness.

And even that won't necessarily work because it can't rule out an unconscious entity that behaves identically to a conscious human. (Personally, I think consciousness will turn out to be a relatively easy chunk of intelligence to simulate and replace. Most complicated thought, as I mentioned, doesn't seem to arise from active conscious activity, other than as a very simple driving impetus. But that's another theory for another day.)


The only real way to do this for sure is to figure out, scientifically, what consciousness is and how it arises from, presumably, existing matter and energy, including possible extensions to physics as we know it. Only then can we say for certain whether a computer, monkey, dog, or planarian is conscious or not*.







* I suspect dogs (at least) and higher are, as they seem to experience anger, terror, and even shame, which, to humans, involve a big conscious component of experience. It would thus not seem likely to evolve into social/motivational mechanisms in the absence of some kind of limited conscious experience. This should not be shocking, either, because dogs are very stupid, but run and jump with the best of humans. They have movement and balance mechanisms as good as, or better than, humans. Intelligence requires a huge brain, but conscious...not so much (maybe.)

 

[rocketdodger]

I

<snip>

Nothing you said is necessarily incorrect, but you are getting off the topic of the OP, which is specfically related to timescale.

I wouldn't mind except that in my experience people who are unable to address the issue in the OP (not you, those that will respond to you) will instead focus on these off-topic things and the thread will spiral out of control.

At least, that is what has happened every single time in the past.

 

[westprog]

Mmkay, back.

Now, about the slow-mo analyzation: I believe that the pictures are not considered conscious simply because we know that they are images on a screen, and not the actual people taken and slowed down hundreds of times.

However, I do see your point. Suppose that we humans discovered a race of entities like those in Terry Pratchett's Strata: a species whose lifespans were so long, and whose minds and bodies operated so slowly, that when a human ship found one they were unable to tell if it was dead or alive. We would consider such a race not-conscious simply because no human in a hundred generations would ever see evidence of its being alive. For all intents and purposes, it would be a statue, and, as we would see no reason to believe that it thinks, we would treat it as such.
The fact of the matter is that we humans can only judge by what we experience, and thus if we never experience a situation which would indicate consciousness - a situation where we interact with the being - we would not be able to judge it as being conscious.

If we discovered the remnants of such a race, and they left writing, artwork, etc, we might well conclude that they were conscious. Why not?

We don't think that other things are conscious because they give no intimation that they are conscious. The ways that we deduce that other people are conscious fail when applied to appliances.

 

[westprog]

The only real way to do this for sure is to figure out, scientifically, what consciousness is and how it arises from, presumably, existing matter and energy, including possible extensions to physics as we know it. Only then can we say for certain whether a computer, monkey, dog, or planarian is conscious or not*.

It will also be necessary to define consciousness so we know that we've figured it out. Another dead horse to be flogged.

 

[Nonpareil]

If we discovered the remnants of such a race, and they left writing, artwork, etc, we might well conclude that they were conscious. Why not?

Yep. That was actually how the characters in Strata knew them to be conscious.

We don't think that other things are conscious because they give no intimation that they are conscious. The ways that we deduce that other people are conscious fail when applied to appliances.

Isn't this what I said?

 

[westprog]

Yep. That was actually how the characters in Strata knew them to be conscious.



Isn't this what I said?

If so, I'm afraid that I'm agreeing with you. But I expect we can work up to a disagreement at some stage.

There are tests which we apply for consciousness. We do it all the time. Some of them wouldn't apply to creatures operating at a different rate*, but others would.

We don't consider either 9 or 90 year olds as not being conscious, just because they operate at a different rate.

*And what it means to operate at a different rate is far from clear. There's no obvious unambiguous definition. We'd know it if we saw it, I suppose.

 

[Nonpareil]

If so, I'm afraid that I'm agreeing with you. But I expect we can work up to a disagreement at some stage.

There are tests which we apply for consciousness. We do it all the time. Some of them wouldn't apply to creatures operating at a different rate*, but others would.

We don't consider either 9 or 90 year olds as not being conscious, just because they operate at a different rate.

*And what it means to operate at a different rate is far from clear. There's no obvious unambiguous definition. We'd know it if we saw it, I suppose.

Sorry to disappoint you, but it appears that we are in agreement after all.