On Consciousness

[Zeuzzz]

Jeez this threads going way to fast with way too many people replying to me, I don't know where to start. So will simply claim I win everything and that's it.

If you think i've avoided a major point of contention then quote this and re post it.

No. Do you know the type of programs called neural programs? They are not programmed by code but by reward and punishment, and when they do something, we have no idea how the decision was made. These programs have not risen to a level where they can be termed conscious, or merely intelligent, but they have reached a level where we cannot predict what they will do.

Consciousness is likely at its core non computational (Penrose, Hameroff 2011) and in-deterministic in its nature, so can not be implemented by any Turing-machine equivalent computer (ordinary, parallel, neural, otherwise). No matter how hard people are trying to.

 

[Zeuzzz]

I smoked 75mg nn-DMT freebase once, and reality dissolved. I could feel my consciousness expanding, leaving my material body behind. Within seconds it was the size of the earth, I was totally aware of everything inside the earth, not what was physically there, but the (what I would describe as) living energy connections that permeated from its core to its surface, which gave the impression of the earth as a whole, a sort of consciously created entity in its own right.

My mind kept expanding. Soon my mind was the universe. Time stopped. I felt like I had been there for eternity, and would be for ever. Pure self awareness, a sort of self introspection that revealed not an external universe I was viewing as an outsider, but the same universe, but as an internal self reflection of existence, that precluded the material one I had long ago left behind. I spoke to people. I looked at clusters. I could access information seemingly at will. Move about. I saw a buddha type entity at one point, not physical but metaphysical, as if made of brilliant energy spectra crystals. Then, it started to subside. Slowly reality came back. And I was left with no more than typical non 'breakthrough' type hallucinatory effects of my real physical surroundings.

Link broken.

This is probably best representation.

Beautiful isn't it?

It seemed sort of disinterested in my presence though, like when you see a slug you don't really think "I wonder what that slug is thinking, lets try interact and work it out" as our level of intelligence so is so beyond theirs, and so different, we don't even recognize them as having intelligence or consciousness as we define it.

 

[Itztli]

Consciousness is likely at its core non computational (Penrose, Hameroff 2011) and in-deterministic in its nature, so can not be implemented by any Turing-machine equivalent computer (ordinary, parallel, neural, otherwise). No matter how hard people are trying to.

Except nobody has demonstrated that:

A) There exist physical phenomenon which exhibit behavior that cannot be computed
B) Our consciousness depends on them

 

[Zeuzzz]

Except nobody has demonstrated that:

A) There exist physical phenomenon which exhibit behavior that cannot be computed

Our actions on the physical world can not be computed or predicted to any sort of significant level.

 

[Pulvinar]

Our actions on the physical world can not be computed or predicted to any sort of significant level.

May I direct you to this other thread

 

[Itztli]

Our actions on the physical world can not be computed or predicted to any sort of significant level.

That doesn't mean the actions are non-computable in a Turing sense. It just means there are limits to practical computers.

We cannot compute all games of chess, for instance, but there's nothing inherently non-computable about the game. Our computers are just too slow.

In other cases, like the 3 body problem, the motion is chaotic, so any small error in either calculation or initial position will get worse over time. Again, nothing that's non-computable in a formal sense.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Fallacy of division.

Mr. Scott "likes!"

From Wiki, on it's converse, the fallacy of composition:

1) Functioning brains think.
2) Functioning brains are nothing but the neurons that they are composed of.
3) If functioning brains think, then the individual neurons in them think.
4) Individual neurons do not think.
5) Functioning brains do not think. (From 3 & 4)
6) Functioning brains think and functioning brains do not think. (From 1 & 5)

Since the premises entail a contradiction (6), at least one of the premises must be false. We may diagnose the problem as located in premise 3, which quite plausibly commits the fallacy of division.

This is like the Chinese Room situation. Replace "think" with "understand." The room does not understand Chinese, and though our brains understand things, their individual neurons do not, and so no magic bean of understanding is necessary.

 

[Dancing David]

How would you objectively establish who's feeling more pain ?

Observational skills and history. Objective does not always mean fool proof.

 

[Dancing David]

Please list a few objectively verifiable facts you would use in your experiment.

Well asking the person is one, although reporter validity is an issue , so behavioral analysis helps as well.

Objective does not mean fool proof.

 

[Dancing David]

What I meant was that consciousness is a private, subjective experience, and we'll never agree on an objective definition.

Well, it isn't, there are levels of arousal, levels of awareness and attention and other behavioral things that also make 'consciousness', now if you mean the philosophical term consciousness, yes that is a totally private experience, but in medical terms levels of consciousness is defined behaviorally.

 

[Dancing David]

You can try, but since you have no access to subjective experiences, you must rely on the subject reporting about their feelings. They could for instance try to quantify the pain on a scale of 1-20, but how would you calibrate the scales ? And how would you get the report out of someone who lacks suitable means of communication, such as a baby ?

Inter-rater reliability is not always as finely calibrated as same a thermometer, that does not mean that it does not have some qualities that are capable of being objective.

In example, withdrawal from painful stimulus is a threshold that varies between people, but can be measured.

 

[Dancing David]

Correct, but that's not the reason for my claim. I'm saying it can't be answered because there's no objective access to someone's personal experience.

Questioning people through large comparative samples is a not un-useful technique. Much can be learned about the subjective experiences and perceptions.

Validity of reports is an issue.

 

[Dancing David]

Our actions on the physical world can not be computed or predicted to any sort of significant level.

Except they can, in simple term , consequences will help predict behaviors. And it is to a significant degree.

Paging Jeff Corey, paging Jeff Corey...

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Link broken.

This is probably best representation.

http://pbmo.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/machine-elf-2.jpg

Beautiful isn't it?

It seemed sort of disinterested in my presence though, like when you see a slug you don't really think "I wonder what that slug is thinking, lets try interact and work it out" as our level of intelligence so is so beyond theirs, and so different, we don't even recognize them as having intelligence or consciousness as we define it.

Once I had a dream where I was a turkey.

This is probably the best representation.

I could totally fly and stuff and the experience was really real, I didn't even recognize it as a dream, being a turkey was just a normal thing I would do.

 

[quarky]

Upon reading these pages, i said to myself "Dude, you should bail on this thread, because you don't know a thing about consciousness."

I know about rocks.

But then 'Dude" says back to me "Dude, you're old; you're educated in bio-chem; you've sat in silence; you've taken all manner of crazy consciousness amplifying plant extracts;
Why would you think you knew nothing about consciousness?"

Geeperz, dude. Maybe we're just stupid? Yes, Dude, we are. By some accounts, it seems like we'd be an authority on the subject by now, but we're a buffoon, actually.
We speak with nominal confidence, hence we're out of here. Me and my shadow-zombie.

 

[PixyMisa]

Consciousness is likely at its core non computational (Penrose, Hameroff 2011) and in-deterministic in its nature, so can not be implemented by any Turing-machine equivalent computer (ordinary, parallel, neural, otherwise).

That's physically and mathematically impossible.

It is also, as Itztli noted, unsupported by evidence from any direction.

It also fails to explain any observed behaviour.

As hypotheses go, it's very much in "so bad it's not even wrong" territory.

 

[Zeuzzz]

That's physically and mathematically impossible.

Excactly, you just defined what I said. In fact, I probably should have used what you said in place of what I did, but the physically impossible part would be disengenous, as there would be physical ways to test the hypothesis even if the mathematical modelling and computational part is is not currently possible with deterministic algorithms (neural or not).

It is also, as Itztli noted, unsupported by evidence from any direction.

Can a computer program predict the color of the car I will see at 4:30pm when I drive to a random location I have not currently decided? If so, to what % of accuracy?

It also fails to explain any observed behaviour.

It explains many attributes of conscious behaviour, free will and a very large proportion of choas theory.

As hypotheses go, it's very much in "so bad it's not even wrong" territory.

As replies go, this is very much in the "subjective hyperbole with no accompanying reason" territory located not in your hands.

If you refuse something out of hand, you refuse it completely without thinking about it or discussing it.


Since I've come to the conclusion you may in fact be a computer yourself from your replies, are you programmed within a windows framwork with C++ using Open Cog? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCog

Or dANN using HMM and bayesian networks?

What does it feel like to not be conscious?

 

[Roboramma]

Can a computer program predict the color of the car I will see at 4:30pm when I drive to a random location I have not currently decided? If so, to what % of accuracy?

? Can you? What's the point of this non-sequitur?

It explains many attributes of conscious behaviour, free will and a very large proportion of choas theory.

Chaos theory isn't an attribute of consciousness, though it does impact upon consciousness.
Free will doesn't exist, though the illusion of free will does.
And that illusion is well explained by the computational viewpoint.
Even if free will did exist, however, the "quantum brain" wouldn't help to explain it.

 

[Zeuzzz]

A definition of unconsciousness might help define its opposite.

Very interesting point, I wonder if anyone is brave enough to define this.

I don't have a clue yet. I've got an incling, but not something that should be posted in a science section of a forum, not at least before we get the real defintion from our many esteemed scientists here.

I'll add this my list of questions that people have not answered yet.

Don't hold your breath.

(You might render yourself unconscious)

 

[Zeuzzz]

? Can you? What's the point of this non-sequitur?

Yes I can. Because its me choosing my own actions so will simply make sure I see that color at that time.

Me: Consciousness is likely at its core non computational (Penrose, Hameroff 2011) and in-deterministic
Pixy: It also fails to explain any observed behaviour.

The observed behaviour being my conscious behaviour, which computation will fail at explaining and getting the prediction correct.

Free will doesn't exist, though the illusion of free will does.

So our lives are predetermined and deterministic, and what we choose to is not a choice, more something that was alsways going to happen from the beggining.

If you agree roughly with that, define 'beginning'.

Big Bang. Oh noes.