On Consciousness

[Mr. Scott]

But seriously, a general purpose computer can do anything if:

1) It has enough speed and memory.
2) Programmers have the will and ability.
3) IO devices are sufficient.

It's fairly easy to simulate a neuron in a computer, and a network of neurons. In fact, difficult tasks of artificial intelligence can be achieved with simulated neural networks. Our brain is a neural network, and a sufficiently detailed simulation of the brain should be conscious, have free will, and do things it wasn't programmed to do.

Why wouldn't it? Does it need a magic bean free will?

It's really not a big deal to program a computer to be flexible enough to do things it wasn't programmed to do. That's how evolution programmed us, after all.

 

[Zeuzzz]

.
2) Programmers have the will and ability.

Define will, in terms of the programming language they are using.

 

[Modified]

Who programmed the brain?

And what is the source code?

Claiming that a simulated brain can't do what a brain can do because "it can only do what it is programmed to do" is disingenuous, as is this response of yours.

If I model global weather using finite element analysis, and the simulation produces (simulated) hurricanes, thunderstorms, tornadoes, etc., that doesn't mean I "programmed the simulation to produce tornadoes". I programmed it to model the effects of wind, temperature, moisture, etc. on the boundaries of a small volume of air, land, or water over a small unit of time, nothing more.

Implying that because a simulation can produce equivalent behavior to the thing being modeled, then that thing must also be a computer program is just being silly. A physical simulation of a computer chip can behave identically (produce equivalent output for equivalent input) to that chip, though that chip was designed, not programmed, and is not running code.

 

[!Kaggen]

Consciousness is full of meaning.
Meaning is imprecise.

Don't believe me ?
Take a look at the history of words.

Mathematics is empty of meaning.
Mathematics is precise.

Don't believe me?
Take a look at the history of mathematics.

Consciousness cannot be computed.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Define will, in terms of the programming language they are using.

I'll call non sequitur. I'm sure that makes sense to you but it doesn't to me.

My context had to do with motivation in software engineers. On the hundred or so software projects I'd worked on, I noticed that if someone asked, "can you program it to do this?" if a programmer said, "no, it can't be done," they really meant, "I don't feel like bothering." To use !Kaggen's terms, they "feel the future" that implementing said feature would not be fun.

The programming language is irrelevant. I'll use a form of descriptive pseudocode.

An emotion can be represented as a number, say, "on a scale from one to ten, how badly do you want to have that chocolate?" So, "will" would be a global integer variable range 1..10. Now, make this variable available to every part of the program needing it, to adjust its operation based its value. The higher the number, the longer it will process possible ways to obtain the chocolate.

Most emotions are manifestations of actions of specific hormones or hormone cocktails, all of which can be represented as numbers (eg parts per million). Neurons change their behaviors when their receptors detect these hormones.

All you have to do is look closely for mechanisms, and you'll find them. If you have a stake in magic bean theories of consciousness, it will sap your motivation to look for mechanisms.

Most everything we do and say here amounts to saying, in one way or another, "I'm better than you." Magic beaners need to feel superior to technologists, and superior to the intelligent machines that get smarter every day.

I can just picture McCoy blustering out, "I'm a collection of magic beans, not a cold-hearted computing machine." Spock answers with one raised eyebrow.

 

[!Kaggen]

I'll call non sequitur. I'm sure that makes sense to you but it doesn't to me.

My context had to do with motivation in software engineers. On the hundred or so software projects I'd worked on, I noticed that if someone asked, "can you program it to do this?" if a programmer said, "no, it can't be done," they really meant, "I don't feel like bothering." To use !Kaggen's terms, they "feel the future" that implementing said feature would not be fun.

The programming language is irrelevant. I'll use a form of descriptive pseudocode.

An emotion can be represented as a number, say, "on a scale from one to ten, how badly do you want to have that chocolate?" So, "will" would be a global integer variable range 1..10. Now, make this variable available to every part of the program needing it, to adjust its operation based its value. The higher the number, the longer it will process possible ways to obtain the chocolate.

Most emotions are manifestations of actions of specific hormones or hormone cocktails, all of which can be represented as numbers (eg parts per million). Neurons change their behaviors when their receptors detect these hormones.

All you have to do is look closely for mechanisms, and you'll find them. If you have a stake in magic bean theories of consciousness, it will sap your motivation to look for mechanisms.

Most everything we do and say here amounts to saying, in one way or another, "I'm better than you." Magic beaners need to feel superior to technologists, and superior to the intelligent machines that get smarter every day.

I can just picture McCoy blustering out, "I'm a collection of magic beans, not a cold-hearted computing machine." Spock answers with one raised eyebrow.

Funny how your description of those that question computation requires such an imprecise description such as "magic bean". Why not just use a number from 1 to 10?

 

[Mr. Scott]

Funny how your description of those that question computation requires such an imprecise description such as "magic bean". Why not just use a number from 1 to 10?

Funny how you don't seem to understand your opponent's point of view. The expression "magic bean" is a derisive reference to the imprecision and incoherence of arguments against the computability of consciousness.

!Kaggen, all I hear from you is a need to argue that consciousness has some intangible component, but you offer nothing positive to support your view. Why is this so important to you?

 

[!Kaggen]

Funny how you don't seem to understand your opponent's point of view. The expression "magic bean" is a derisive reference to the imprecision and incoherence of arguments against the computability of consciousness.

!Kaggen, all I hear from you is a need to argue that consciousness has some intangible component, but you offer nothing positive to support your view. Why is this so important to you?

Not intangible, imprecise.
Because that's reality.

 

[quarky]

What about female consciousness?
Who understands that?

 

[blobru]

Sleepin' on the couch again, q-man? (you ought to rig up one of those contraptions like you had for your chickens)

 

[!Kaggen]

What about female consciousness?
Who understands that?

Me

 

[Mr. Scott]

Not intangible, imprecise.
Because that's reality.

Usually, insurmountable imprecision is a hallmark of nonexistence. Explain how such a thing, say, a magic bean of consciousness, can be "imprecise" but also real. Try explaining it without dodges and cryptic quips. Only a full-bodied explanation will impress me.

 

[tsig]

Funny how you don't seem to understand your opponent's point of view. The expression "magic bean" is a derisive reference to the imprecision and incoherence of arguments against the computability of consciousness.

!Kaggen, all I hear from you is a need to argue that consciousness has some intangible component, but you offer nothing positive to support your view. Why is this so important to you?

Maybe !Kaggen is trying to use his posts to prove his point that consciousness is unknowable.

 

[!Kaggen]

Usually, insurmountable imprecision is a hallmark of nonexistence. Explain how such a thing, say, a magic bean of consciousness, can be "imprecise" but also real. Try explaining it without dodges and cryptic quips. Only a full-bodied explanation will impress me.

Do you believe the meaning of words are precise?
Do you believe words have not changed in meaning in the past?
Do you believe words will not change their meanings in the future?
How many meanings does "run" have?
Which one is the precise one?

 

[rocketdodger]

Do you believe the meaning of words are precise?
Do you believe words have not changed in meaning in the past?
Do you believe words will not change their meanings in the future?
How many meanings does "run" have?
Which one is the precise one?

A word is merely a reference.

If it references something, it is precise.

Thus all words are precise in their used context.

If you disagree, then I would ask you why I can say "the fridge is running" and "the cat is running" and you know exactly what I mean.

You don't interpret "the fridge is running" to mean it has legs, and you don't interpret "the cat is running" to mean the cat is keeping beers cold.

If that isn't precision, I don't know what is.

 

[rocketdodger]

Mathematics is empty of meaning.

This is kind of a dumb statement.

Look at this string: "1 + 1 == 2"

Are you honestly saying each part of that string has no meaning?

 

[quarky]

Fundamental8st science at its best or worse:

The human brain is the only conscious thing in the universe, unless we make machines that could also be conscious.

I like the notion of 'nothing special about us or consciousness', but why must it always eliminate all other entities from the equation?

We are so alone in the universe, longing for other intelligent life, that we may have to create it.

Or drive over it on the way to work.

This discussion is gratuitously anthropomorphic and cynical.

Whatever floats your boat.

 

[Roboramma]

I was all set to disagree until I realised what you were saying.

Good point.

It's funny how blind we can be to the rest of life on this planet.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Sharing the views of one of the most eminent biologists of our time (Dawkins) with the one of the most respected physicists (Neil DeGrasse), results in a number of conclusions they seen perfectly in agreement with the other, despite both being sciences based on totally disparate laws and theories, even if what they agree with at points is it odds with a lot of current models in both areas. Such interdisciplinary merging of scientific disciplines, that were previously totally separate disciplines in terms of laws and scales, can often reveal links between such areas previously thought to be independent of each other.

Gives a very unique perspective on how an astrophysicist sharing his knowledge of physics can be used to explain evolutionary biology in a completely unique and interdisciplinary sense for highly interesting connections between two separate disciplines (maybe unorthodox to the people working on only one of these areas themselves, but very though provoking in regards to the possible links between the two)

The Poetry of Science: Richard Dawkins and Neil deGrasse Tyson


Biologist meets astrophysicist = Fascinating postulations on potential connections between these two separate areas of science oft presumed independent sciences, that have have been used in support of each other in certain contexts on paper and theory, but often lack clear definitions of how they can be unified.

Seriously, watch it. V interesting, from start to finish.

Also, this.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson - Isaac Asimov Memorial - Faster Than the Speed of Light (2012)

 

[Zeuzzz]

Is nominating the same user repeatedly, for cutting to the raw point again and again to question reified hypostatized philosophies, against the rules?