On Consciousness

[Dancing David]

We speak with nominal confidence, hence we're out of here. Me and my shadow-zombie.

Is that like a p-zombie?

I will miss your contributions.

 

[Zeuzzz]

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.

A fool thinks he's wise, a wise man knows himself to be a fool.

Accordingly, you've just shown yourself wise

Please dont stop posting

Even if the materialists here are going to tear apart what you have learned or deduced about consciousness via the methods you mention above, so what. We all have our own unique subjective experiences to share, even if contentious in their implication to certain people.

The scientifically statistical weight of these deductions does seem to be converging towards a common concept, time will tell.

 

[PixyMisa]

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).

No. The hypothesis proposes something that is both physically and mathematically impossible. It cannot be true.

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?

Yes.

If so, to what % of accuracy?

Arbitrary, depending on the detail and accuracy of the model.

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

No, it doesn't explain any part of any of those.

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

Nope.

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

I don't refuse it out of hand. It is impossible, explains nothing, and is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.

Since I've come to the conclusion you may in fact be a computer yourself from your replies

No you haven't.

 

[PixyMisa]

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

Ad hominem.

And, since I've already provided a definition for consciousness, quite beside the point.

 

[PixyMisa]

YMe: 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.

That's just repeating Penrose and Hameroff's assertion. It is still unsupported, impossible, and explains nothing.

So our lives are predetermined and deterministic

No, since the Universe itself is not.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Where's the beef?

I need something to actually reply to, Pixy.

And I'm pretty hungry too.

PS: I really do feel like im speaking to a computer when I chat to you pix, that's no joke.

 

[Zeuzzz]

No, since the Universe itself is not.

ooooo found something!

Why not?

 

[PixyMisa]

Where's the beef?

I need something to actually reply to, Pixy.

You'll need to start with something that isn't mathematically and physically impossible then.

ooooo found something!

Why not?

What do you mean, "why not"?

It isn't. It's not a "why" question. The Universe is not deterministic. On a large scale it is statistically predictable, but it's not deterministic.

 

[Zeuzzz]

The Universe is not deterministic.

Why is it not deterministic?

 

[PixyMisa]

Why is it not deterministic?

Wrong question.

 

[Lilith]

None of this suggests that the experience of pain is not amenable to scientific inquiry.

I didn't say it did. Pain is certainly able to be studied scientifically. But the subjective nature of pain, and all the reasons for it being subjective, make it difficult to study conclusively.

Behavior (recoiling from a shock, for example) does not necessarily equate to a painful experience. In fact, we have reflexes that force a behavior before the information even reaches neurons in the brain. So, in animals, we can't really know if or to what extent an experience is painful - but we can certainly assume (and believe) that an animal experienced pain.

 

[Zeuzzz]

eghbvtsaet !

The Universe is not deterministic.

Why is it not deterministic?

Wrong question.

Comic Gold.

Deliberate troll, or just you can not answer my question?

 

[PixyMisa]

Deliberate troll, or just you can not answer my question?

You need to ask a question that actually means something.

Why is the Universe not deterministic? is not a meaningful question.

How is the Universe non-deterministic? is better. What non-deterministic behaviours does the Universe exhibit, and how do we know this? would be better still.

An overview:

Indeterminism^WP (skip the waffle and go to the section on quantum mechanics)
Quantum indeterminacy^WP

In depth:

Bell's theorem^WP
EPR paradox^WP
Counterfactual definiteness^WP
Interpretations of quantum mechanics^WP
Elitzur–Vaidman bomb tester^WP

 

[Zeuzzz]

You need to ask a question that actually means something.

Why is the Universe not deterministic? is not a meaningful question.

How is the Universe non-deterministic? is better. What non-deterministic behaviours does the Universe exhibit, and how do we know this? would be better still.

An overview:

Indeterminism^WP (skip the waffle and go to the section on quantum mechanics)
Quantum indeterminacy^WP

In depth:

Bell's theorem^WP
EPR paradox^WP
Counterfactual definiteness^WP
Interpretations of quantum mechanics^WP
Elitzur–Vaidman bomb tester^WP

Uberly overt interpretation of literary semantics noted. (how vs why)

Substantial material linked to in that post, dually noted.

This time, I can read your supporting evidence and comment in detail when I have the time.

Thanks.

 

[PixyMisa]

Uber overt interpretation of literary semantics noted.

No. Not at all. This actually matters.

You will get nowhere if you just wave your hands about rather than precisely defining your terms, if you accept nonsensical "theories" like Penrose & Hameroff's just because they sound neat or lead to conclusions you prefer.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Check my edit of above post to understand why I said that.

 

[Jeff Corey]

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

Paging Jeff Corey, paging Jeff Corey...

You're probably "thinking" of the Matching Law and probability matching in choice behavior.

 

[Roboramma]

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

That's not very interesting, though, is it? I mean, I could write a computer program that could do the same thing.

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.

There's a difference between explaining something and predicting it. We can explain the origin of a lightning strike, but we can't predict exactly where lighting will strike.

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.

Nope. Pixy addressed this well enough. But I'd just like to add for clarity's sake: not being deterministic doesn't mean "free will". It just means random.

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

Well, any particular initial conditions would do. The state of a system 10 seconds ago is fine as initial conditions from which to make predictions.

 

[Zeuzzz]

We need a moderated thread that accepts only alternative points of viewpoint for every other post, where I dont feel I have the need to reply to seven totally wrong posts one by one, by which time there will be another seven. I have a life outside jref.

Over and out.

 

[Jeff Corey]

... So, in animals, we can't really know if or to what extent an experience is painful - but we can certainly assume (and believe) that an animal experienced pain.

Please don't tell than to my colleague who has a grant from Sloan-Kettering to study the effects of endrorphines and antagonists on response to pain in mice.