On Consciousness

[Dancing David]

My only issue is this Zuezzz, plasma is part of cosmology already and the Debye length is what matters. So the forces of gravity dominate over large distances.

 

[Zeuzzz]

My only issue is this Zuezzz, plasma is part of cosmology already and the Debye length is what matters. So the forces of gravity dominate over large distances.

I didn't say otherwise. So we are in 100% agreement with each other, for once.

EDIT: Note, I deleted the first sentence in the quote from my above post (Since the universe is nearly all plasma, electromagnetic forces are equal in importance with gravitation on all scales), as I agree it is misleading in the fact it infers that EM forces are somehow dominant over gravitational on large scales, which leads to numerous problems with large mass bodies.

 

[rocketdodger]

For those interested in a thorough argument against computationalists this book by programmer Stephen Talbott will prove most interesting

http://netfuture.org/fdnc/

Well, I guess it is fairly easy for anyone to call themselves a "programmer."

http://natureinstitute.org/txt/st/bio.htm

cmon, seriously ....

 

[dlorde]

What I'm hearing is, "because of the way consciousness feels to me, the smallest pieces of my consciousness must also be conscious." In other words, divide the magic bean of consciousness in half, and you get two half-sized magic beans of consciousness? Divide each half again into quarters, etc, do you ever get a non-conscious bit of bean? If not, then do you have any theory of consciousness at all?

Aha, the 'Holographic Theory of Consciousness' - sounds weighty doesn't it?

 

[tensordyne]

Hate to bring up a largely irrelevant point here about PC but ...

I agree. PC as you see it, as a disparate bunch of theories that were developed on totally different starting assumptions than the big bang theory (Infinite universe with no creation date) has been largely falsified due to data contradicting the theories that were proposed, and a lack of recent alternate explanations of the data to support the PC approach.

However, the facts I mentioned before about the attributes of the EM field, are totally correct still, even if the PC theories they were used in support of are now in conflict with modern data.

From a epistemic viewpoint and a framework to work with, the main ideas still stand:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plasma_cosmology&oldid=88919194
* An origin in time for the universe is rejected,[11] due to causality arguments and rejection of ex nihilo models as a stealth form of creationism.[12]
* Since every part of the universe we observe is evolving, it assumes that the universe itself is evolving as well, though a scalar expansion as predicted from the FRW metric is not accepted as part of this evolution (see static universe).

Which is I think what tessordyne was getting at. Not the specific theories, but the general philosophy of this approach to the universe at large.

AKA, an EM-(or Unified-)Field-Based panpsychism with individuality delusion spread throughout a perplexingly complex quantum computer?

 

[!Kaggen]

Well, I guess it is fairly easy for anyone to call themselves a "programmer."

http://natureinstitute.org/txt/st/bio.htm

cmon, seriously ....

Oh really, so Jaron Lanier is also not a programmer?

http://www.jaronlanier.com/general.html

He also makes a great case against the computationalist agenda in his book ," I am not a gadget".

 

[steenkh]

Oh really, so Jaron Lanier is also not a programmer?

http://www.jaronlanier.com/general.html

He is definitely a programmer. Programmer is not a protected title, and even if it was, he would have qualified.

He also makes a great case against the computationalist agenda in his book ," I am not a gadget".

I have already skimmed a number of chapters, but only found general descriptions that anybody in the field should be familiar with, and a number of general claims that were not substantiated in the bits that I found. Is there a special chapter you would recommend? I am loath to spend too much time on what has every sign of being a waste.

Emotional arguments like "I am not gadget" do not bode well for the book, if he seriously tries to use them.

 

[!Kaggen]

He is definitely a programmer. Programmer is not a protected title, and even if it was, he would have qualified.


I have already skimmed a number of chapters, but only found general descriptions that anybody in the field should be familiar with, and a number of general claims that were not substantiated in the bits that I found. Is there a special chapter you would recommend? I am loath to spend too much time on what has every sign of being a waste.

Emotional arguments like "I am not gadget" do not bode well for the book, if he seriously tries to use them.

http://www.jaronlanier.com/aichapter.html

 

[PixyMisa]

http://www.jaronlanier.com/aichapter.html

Oh my God, it's full of fail.

Instead of addressing the thought experiments that contradict his position, he proposes new thought experiments relying on blatant physical impossibilities.

Appeals to consequences, arguments from ignorance, false analogies, the thing is just an appalling mess.

I don't doubt he's a programmer. He is also an idiot.

 

[!Kaggen]

Steve Talbott

So the real issue isn't technology as it is usually thought of -- all those machines we build. The real issue is self-mastery. Can we rise above the level at which we ourselves perform like computers? No one can tell you what to expect if we do succeed in this higher task, since the one thing it won't look like is the predictable execution of a program. The highest expressions of the human being may look natural and inevitable after the fact, but they are always a complete mystery before the fact.

http://www.natureinstitute.org/txt/st/jung.htm

Jaron Lanier

Even though the question of machine consciousness is both undecidable and lacking in consequence until some hypothesized future time when an artificial intelligence appears, attitudes towards the question today nonetheless have a tangible effect. We are vulnerable to making ourselves stupid in order to make possibly smart machines seem smart.

http://www.jaronlanier.com/aichapter.html

The same theme: Technological advancement is integral to human advancement

 

[!Kaggen]

Oh my God, it's full of fail.

Instead of addressing the thought experiments that contradict his position, he proposes new thought experiments relying on blatant physical impossibilities.

Appeals to consequences, arguments from ignorance, false analogies, the thing is just an appalling mess.

I don't doubt he's a programmer. He is also an idiot.

Sure the same idiot that pioneered virtual reality and coined the word, that works closely with Ramachandran, that has the largest played(he plays each and everyone of them himself) collection of ancient musical instruments in the world, that has a publication list like this http://www.jaronlanier.com/pubs.html.

Who is he in the midst of brilliant Pixy Misa the great model train enthusiast who claims to have explained consciousness and even written conscious programs.

The idolatry is strong with this one.

 

[PixyMisa]

Sure the same idiot that pioneered virtual reality and coined the word, that works closely with Ramachandran, that has the largest played(he plays each and everyone of them himself) collection of ancient musical instruments in the world, that has a publication list like this http://www.jaronlanier.com/pubs.html.

Yes. That idiot.

Try actually reading that article you just linked. It is garbage.

Who is he in the midst of brilliant Pixy Misa the great model train enthusiast who claims to have explained consciousness and even written conscious programs.

Nope. I didn't explain it, nor ever claim to. I merely offered for consideration the explanation forged by others.

The idolatry is strong with this one.

You seem confused.

 

[Itztli]

Jaron Lanierhttp://www.jaronlanier.com/aichapter.html

Find a rainstorm that's an exact copy of your brain. Is the rainstorm conscious ?

It's not even wrong.

 

[!Kaggen]

Yes. That idiot.

Try actually reading that article you just linked. It is garbage.

I have and it is not garbage at all.
It is completely consistent with every argument you have made. Once one begins the process of pretending that an abstraction is the real thing there is no justification for stopping the abstraction process as long as it is consistent and mathematically sound. Is that not what you claim when you say the mathematics has proven that semantics is syntax?
Of course what Jaron shows very elegantly is how abstractions are meaningless by definition and when dealing with something such as consciousness which is only about meaning its a pointless exercise. Except of course if you want to spin a web of logically consistent meaninglessness to justify your job description.

 

[!Kaggen]

Find a rainstorm that's an exact copy of your brain. Is the rainstorm conscious ?

It's not even wrong.

Sure an abstraction of a rainstorm into numbers and an abstraction of consciousness into numbers can map to each other. There is no theoretical reason they cannot.

Of course in the real world of full meaning they have nothing physically to do with each other apart from the usual descriptions by conscious humans of rainstorms and getting wet and the effect rainstorms may have on a conscious humans expression.

 

[PixyMisa]

I have and it is not garbage at all.

And I have read it and it is complete garbage.

It is completely consistent with every argument you have made.

Nope.

Once one begins the process of pretending that an abstraction is the real thing there is no justification for stopping the abstraction process as long as it is consistent and mathematically sound.

Perhaps so, but that has nothing to do with what Lanier wrote.

Is that not what you claim when you say the mathematics has proven that semantics is syntax?

I never made any such claim.

The point I made is that there is no other possible source for semantics. You either accept that semantics is syntax or you believe in magic beans.

ETA: Oh, you mean when I mentioned Godel's incompleteness theorems? Yes, you can take his method for constructing the theorems (not the theorems themselves, but the method used) as a proof that semantics is syntax, because he proves his theorems precisely by reducing all possible mathematical semantics to syntax.

Of course what Jaron shows very elegantly is how abstractions are meaningless by definition and when dealing with something such as consciousness which is only about meaning its a pointless exercise.

Really? Where does he show that, and why didn't you link to that instead?

Except of course if you want to spin a web of logically consistent meaninglessness to justify your job description.

Logical consistency would at least be a step forward from what you've offered.

 

[PixyMisa]

Sure an abstraction of a rainstorm into numbers and an abstraction of consciousness into numbers can map to each other. There is no theoretical reason they cannot.

While that's true after a fashion, it's also garbage.

I can take a Bach concerto and map it onto a pound of cheese. But all the useful information is in the map, not the cheese.

Lanier maps A onto B, then argues his point about A based on the properties of B, ignoring the map. That's garbage. It's completely irredeemable, and that's why I describe him as an idiot.

 

[Itztli]

Sure an abstraction of a rainstorm into numbers and an abstraction of consciousness into numbers can map to each other. There is no theoretical reason they cannot.

Except that there does not exist a static mapping between the dynamics of a brain and the dynamics of a rainstorm.

 

[PixyMisa]

Precisely. Same for any of the other examples Lanier provides.

 

[steenkh]

http://www.jaronlanier.com/aichapter.html

OK, thank you. I am glad I did not waste any more time on this. He obviously does not have a clue.