On Consciousness

[Mr. Scott]

Has it not dawned on you yet, what is going on here?

Its quite simple, there are a few posters who presume that consciousness can be produced through computation.

In opposition to this are a few posters who are pointing out that this presumption cannot at this point be made.

Accompanied by a few posters who are not falling into one of these two camps, but taking an interest in points made here and there.

No woo anywhere as far as I can see.

IDK after years and years of playing with woos, (and being a woo myself a long time ago) I can just feel when someone has a woo card in their hand by the types of cards they play.

Then again, one doesn't tend to call what they believe in woo, whatever it is.

If consciousness cannot be produced by computation, then what hypotheses have you? Uncomputable EM fields? ...or carbon based life form specialness? ...or quantum mechanical mysteriousness?

The claim that the brain is more than a computer is not supported by any evidence I'm aware of. Until such evidence is presented, it's in the woo class IMO.

 

[PixyMisa]

Has it not dawned on you yet, what is going on here?

We knew that from the outset.

Its quite simple, there are a few posters who presume that consciousness can be produced through computation.

Not even remotely. There are many posters (look at the poll results!) who argue convincingly, based on best current theory and an immense body of evidence, that consciousness can be produced through computation.

There are a few posters who disagree; none of them has put forward a coherent point, much less an argument, none of them has provided any evidence at all, and many of them assert things that are flatly nonsensical.

 

[Belz...]

Has it not dawned on you yet, what is going on here?

Its quite simple, there are a few posters who presume that consciousness can be produced through computation.

In opposition to this are a few posters who are pointing out that this presumption cannot at this point be made.

Accompanied by a few posters who are not falling into one of these two camps, but taking an interest in points made here and there.

No woo anywhere as far as I can see.

Trouble is, we have a basic understanding of what consciousness is and a very solid knowledge of the fact that it's entirely physical and biological. So whatever consciousness is, it's either fully computational or there's something we don't know about physics. So when someone comes along and says it can't be computational, what's the alternative ? Well, it's either magic or new physics, both of which are woo because there is no reason, whatsoever, to assume that any of that is required, apart from a feeling that consciousness is "more" or "special" compared to the rest. And that feeling, aside from subjective considerations, stems from a philosophical point of view that has been debunked since not long after Descartes.

As for the proposed EM and other hypotheses, it doesn't remove the objections of those with this special feeling. Nothing ever will.

 

[dlorde]

Yeah, sorry, no. Hypercomputers need to be able to complete infinite amounts of work in finite time, and that's physically impossible. Anything less - anything finite - is "only" Turing-complete.

Yes, I know; however, I followed up the Wiki quote: "The terms are not quite synonymous: "super-Turing computation" usually implies that the proposed model is supposed to be physically realizable, while "hypercomputation" does not", and found a lot of talk and papers about physical implementations of what are claimed to be super or supra-Turing neural nets (e.g. Neural & Super-Turing Computing), but also the paper I previously linked suggesting that at least one of these can be analytically reduced to a Turing-complete model.

I haven't had time to dig into the 'super/supra-Turing' papers yet, so I'm keeping an open mind on it for now. I have a suspicion that it may reduce to Turing-complete anyway, but I don't know.

 

[PixyMisa]

Yes, I know; however, I followed up the Wiki quote: "The terms are not quite synonymous: "super-Turing computation" usually implies that the proposed model is supposed to be physically realizable, while "hypercomputation" does not", and found a lot of talk and papers about physical implementations of what are claimed to be super or supra-Turing neural nets (e.g. Neural & Super-Turing Computing), but also the paper I previously linked suggesting that at least one of these can be analytically reduced to a Turing-complete model.

Ah, okay. As far as I can see, there's nothing between Turing-complete and hypercomputation, but I'll take another look at those links.

 

[dlorde]

... But then there is the nagging question of...out there. What actually does occupy all that empty space? How empty is it? Are there regions of....nothing? If so...what would happen if 'something' went there?

It seems to me that if you have a volume of space (as we know it, with various fields and quantum fluctuations), it is 'empty' in colloquial terms, having no matter, but it isn't nothing. The idea of a region of nothing within that space is nonsensical, as it would be bounded on all sides by normal space, and there would be literally nothing between those conceptual bounds - i.e. the normal space would be continuous. 'Nothing' doesn't physically exist.

It reminds me of the argument against the brain 'filling in' the retinal field occupied by the blind-spot. There isn't an area in the visual field map in the visual cortex that has neurons waiting for signals from the blind-spot area that never arrive. The signals from the outer edges of the blind-spot arrive at adjacent neurons in the visual field map; in the map, the blind-spot doesn't exist, so there's nothing to fill in. [At a higher level, the visual fields from the 2 eyes are combined, & compensation for discrepancies between the two occurs there].

 

[punshhh]

IDK after years and years of playing with woos, (and being a woo myself a long time ago) I can just feel when someone has a woo card in their hand by the types of cards they play.

Yes, just steer clear of applying that rule of thumb to me.

Then again, one doesn't tend to call what they believe in woo, whatever it is.

Yes woo is not absolute, indeed some think that there is woo on the computationalist side of the fence.

If consciousness cannot be produced by computation, then what hypotheses have you? Uncomputable EM fields? ...or carbon based life form specialness? ...or quantum mechanical mysteriousness?

Its simple, I have stated it numerous times. Its that consciousness is an emergent property of life. Computation goes on in all aspects of life, but it is not the computation itself which produces the consciousness in the entity. It is the biochemical life of the organism. The computation provides the intelligent framework of chemical activity through which the consciousness acts in its environment.

The claim that the brain is more than a computer is not supported by any evidence I'm aware of. Until such evidence is presented, it's in the woo class IMO.

The brain is alive.

 

[PixyMisa]

Yes, just steer clear of applying that rule of thumb to me.

Why? It's clearly applicable.

Its simple, I have stated it numerous times. Its that consciousness is an emergent property of life. Computation goes on in all aspects of life, but it is not the computation itself which produces the consciousness in the entity. It is the biochemical life of the organism.

Except that every behaviour ascribed consciousness is computational in nature and not intrinsically biological. You're providing neither a meaningful distinction nor an argument for your position, you just seem to disagree for the sake of being disagreeable.

 

[punshhh]

It seems to me that if you have a volume of space (as we know it, with various fields and quantum fluctuations), it is 'empty' in colloquial terms, having no matter, but it isn't nothing. The idea of a region of nothing within that space is nonsensical, as it would be bounded on all sides by normal space, and there would be literally nothing between those conceptual bounds - i.e. the normal space would be continuous. 'Nothing' doesn't physically exist.

It reminds me of the argument against the brain 'filling in' the retinal field occupied by the blind-spot. There isn't an area in the visual field map in the visual cortex that has neurons waiting for signals from the blind-spot area that never arrive. The signals from the outer edges of the blind-spot arrive at adjacent neurons in the visual field map; in the map, the blind-spot doesn't exist, so there's nothing to fill in. [At a higher level, the visual fields from the 2 eyes are combined, & compensation for discrepancies between the two occurs there].

If something exists then nothing is impossible, as I'm sure Robin would say if he were here. Because it would be an empty place next to the thing that exists and therefore not nothing (even if it was an infinite distance or time from it).

For there to be nothing, no thing would be in existence under any circumstances.

 

[Mr. Scott]

The brain is alive.

Suppose we have a computer that models the entire human brain and behaves as if conscious. In what way is it not "alive" like a biological brain, such that it can't possibly really be conscious?

 

[Dancing David]

Well, various high mucky-mucks of Bhuddism might suggest that such a state would be Nirvana.

Not really, nirvana is a state of free action, not a state of memory loss.

 

[Dancing David]

Has it not dawned on you yet, what is going on here?

Its quite simple, there are a few posters who presume that consciousness can be produced through computation.

In opposition to this are a few posters who are pointing out that this presumption cannot at this point be made.

Accompanied by a few posters who are not falling into one of these two camps, but taking an interest in points made here and there.

No woo anywhere as far as I can see.

Saying that consciousness is not a product of biochemistry is a different woo claim.

Is consciousness a brain process, yes or no?

 

[Dancing David]

Yes, just steer clear of applying that rule of thumb to me.

Yes woo is not absolute, indeed some think that there is woo on the computationalist side of the fence.

Its simple, I have stated it numerous times. Its that consciousness is an emergent property of life. Computation goes on in all aspects of life, but it is not the computation itself which produces the consciousness in the entity. It is the biochemical life of the organism.

Besides being over broad, this is also in disagreement with the statements I targeted.

Do you believe that consciousness is a product of biochemistry, yes or no.

The computation provides the intelligent framework of chemical activity through which the consciousness acts in its environment.

The brain is alive.

Yes but is consciousness something other than a brain process?

 

[Belz...]

The brain is alive.

So are bird wings but plane wings seem to be doing the job fine.

 

[Dancing David]

It seems to me that if you have a volume of space (as we know it, with various fields and quantum fluctuations), it is 'empty' in colloquial terms, having no matter, but it isn't nothing. The idea of a region of nothing within that space is nonsensical, as it would be bounded on all sides by normal space, and there would be literally nothing between those conceptual bounds - i.e. the normal space would be continuous. 'Nothing' doesn't physically exist.

It reminds me of the argument against the brain 'filling in' the retinal field occupied by the blind-spot. There isn't an area in the visual field map in the visual cortex that has neurons waiting for signals from the blind-spot area that never arrive. The signals from the outer edges of the blind-spot arrive at adjacent neurons in the visual field map; in the map, the blind-spot doesn't exist, so there's nothing to fill in. [At a higher level, the visual fields from the 2 eyes are combined, & compensation for discrepancies between the two occurs there].

The brain does fill in the blind spot, it is done in the visual cortex, and does not appear when looking through only one eye.

The idea of a visual map is very complex and there is not a one to one mapping from the photo receptors in the eye to the processing of the visual cortex. The perceptual 'map' of the visual field is abstracted is some ways and is certainly confabulated in the blind spot when looking through only one eye.


I am also curious about the bolded statement, as my understanding was different. (ETA: and in looking at it again it would still appear that even the cross connections between the processing columns still are filling in the visual field, they are not exactly taking an existing sensation and just moving it. The reason I say this is that there would be perceptual glitches in checkerboards at an angle. The crossover of the two eyes is immaterial when the other eye is closed. My thinking's is while there is somewhat of a retinal map in the lateral geniculate nucleus that matches the pre processed visual field from the retina, it still passes onto the visual cortex, which is where the confabulation occurs. I could be quite wrong. )

Just as most of what appears to be color vision is confabulated, their is no direct sensation of most of the color we perceive..

 

[quarky]

We knew that from the outset.


Not even remotely. There are many posters (look at the poll results!) who argue convincingly, based on best current theory and an immense body of evidence, that consciousness can be produced through computation.

There are a few posters who disagree; none of them has put forward a coherent point, much less an argument, none of them has provided any evidence at all, and many of them assert things that are flatly nonsensical.

Asserting things that are clearly nonsensical, clearly, is evidence that the brain is not a computer.

Woof!

 

[Jeff Corey]

We knew that from the outset.


Not even remotely. There are many posters (look at the poll results!) who argue convincingly, based on best current theory and an immense body of evidence, that consciousness can be produced through computation.

There are a few posters who disagree; none of them has put forward a coherent point, much less an argument, none of them has provided any evidence at all, and many of them assert things that are flatly nonsensical.

1. Argumentum ad populum or argumentum ad numerum.
2. I disagree. Point to an incohertent point or flat nonsense.
Quod erat demonstratum.

 

[Jeff Corey]

...Except that every behaviour ascribed consciousness is computational in nature and not intrinsically biological...

Every behavior called conscious is intrinsically biological and not something else.

 

[dlorde]

If something exists then nothing is impossible, as I'm sure Robin would say if he were here. Because it would be an empty place next to the thing that exists and therefore not nothing (even if it was an infinite distance or time from it).

That's pretty much what I said.

For there to be nothing, no thing would be in existence under any circumstances.

For once, I agree with you. A novel sensation

 

[Fudbucker]

Besides being over broad, this is also in disagreement with the statements I targeted.

Do you believe that consciousness is a product of biochemistry, yes or no.


Yes but is consciousness something other than a brain process?

Are you saying consciousness is a brain process???

No conscious computers?