On Consciousness

[Mr. Scott]

Video of Chalmers stating how it is as far as consciousness research goes.

http://youtu.be/r4SLOr2icnY

All he says basically is he doesn't know, and people who claim to know really don't know.

Has Chalmers' work produced any fruit at all? Or, does it just serve to make us feel secure against the progress of those heartless machines?

 

[PixyMisa]

Has Chalmers' work produced any fruit at all?

He's a dualist. He produces antifruit.

 

[PixyMisa]

EDIT -- it just occurred to me that perhaps you are simply a little confused, and think that the computationalists view the neurons of the brain as just the "hardware" running "software" which is merely the impulses traveling between them. This is absolutely not the case. The computationalist position is that the concepts of "hardware" and "software" do not apply to the biological brain, at least not in the way it does to silicon computers.

Right.

A neural network^WP like the brain is different on the surface from a stored-program computer^WP, but per the Church-Turing thesis^WP they have mathematically identical expressive power.

Anything one can do, the other can do. Always.

 

[PixyMisa]

The topic of behavior and consciousness has come up on this forum in the recent past (that I am aware of). Consciousness is not behavior (contra to the cousin of the computationalists the bahviorists), it is an internal state of being. A black box could just be sitting there, experiencing (and thus is conscious) a sunny day. You would not be able to tell from outside of the box that this is happening, which is why consciousness is not fundamentally about behavior.

Wrong. It is always possible to open the box, which is why everything is fundamentally about behaviour.

Unless you're a dualist, in which case you're just plain wrong.

Emulate or simulate?

Same process, different levels of abstraction.

If you are simulating the brain (or anything else) there is never any reason to expect that the simulation will do anything beyond hopefully giving good predictions of what is being simulated. As far as emulation goes, you can program computers to say all sorts of things, that doesn't mean a thing.

If you simulate the brain accurately, it is impossible for the simulation not to reproduce the behaviours of the brain. That applies for anything. It's what an accurate simulation is.

If you don't simulate the brain accurately, then fix your simulation.

The question is not if a machine made above could not possibly report back whatever you want it to in terms of experience as far as emulation goes, the question is, why should you believe it?

You should believe it more than you'd believe anyone, even yourself, because you can so easily look inside the box and check.

 

[tensordyne]

He's a dualist. He produces antifruit.

Antifruit? What the heck is that about?

 

[tensordyne]

PixyMisa, straight up question, is there anything it is like for you to experience red?

 

[tensordyne]

All he says basically is he doesn't know, and people who claim to know really don't know.

Has Chalmers' work produced any fruit at all? Or, does it just serve to make us feel secure against the progress of those heartless machines?

I agree with the assessment you gave above of what Chalmers said. I even agree with what Chalmers said as well. From an academic point of view Chalmers is pretty successful. As far as figuring out consciousness (or artificial consciousness), no.

And please stop with this defending the human status psycho-social motif. If you agree that we have not yet figured out what the physical basis for consciousness is, that does not mean you are a Luddite. It does not mean that you think we will never be able to replicate consciousness artificially. It just means that you think the way it is supposedly replicated now, as per some adherents, is not the way. That is all it means.

 

[tensordyne]

You should believe it more than you'd believe anyone, even yourself, because you can so easily look inside the box and check.

In terms of the definitions you have given before for what you mean by consciousness and awareness, yes.

In terms of what I mean (you could say, the Real version because it is the type of consciousness most everyone else is talking about when they say consciousness), no.

 

[PixyMisa]

Antifruit? What the heck is that about?

Chalmers is a dualist. We can look at this in one of two ways:

1. He believes that the Universe is not logically consistent.
2. His beliefs are not logically consistent.

Either way, nothing he does is of use to anyone except as an object lesson. (If you don't eat your vegetables, you'll grow up to be David Chalmers!)

Hence, antifruit.

 

[PixyMisa]

PixyMisa, straight up question, is there anything it is like for you to experience red?

Yes. Obviously.

And it's a computational process.

 

[PixyMisa]

In terms of the definitions you have given before for what you mean by consciousness and awareness, yes.

That's what everyone means by consciousness, from Descartes to, well, you. That's the whole point.

In terms of what I mean (you could say, the Real version because it is the type of consciousness most everyone else is talking about when they say consciousness), no.

Wrong.

 

[Belz...]

Forgive me if I don't just take your word for that last bit about the brain.

You don't think the brain is turing complete ?

The brain doesn't get any data.

This comment boggles the mind.

The brain's input is entirely physical, and that input is only "encoded with information" in the same way that ripples in a pond are "encoded with information" about the rock that was dropped in the pond.

The computer doesn't get data. The computer's input is entirely physical, etc. After all it's electrical impulses affecting switches and transistors and memory made of small bits of metal.

You're creating an unwarranted distinction between the brain and a computer, and it's easy to see why someone would think it's because you don't want them to be alike.

Sure, my truck can do some things if you replace its guts with a computer simulation -- could still work the lights and the wipers and play the radio... but it can't do everything.

It can do everything that it has an interface to the real world with.

And what about my fleshy truck ?

Does the brain really do that?

What, exactly, is it that you think brains do ?

And if so, is that what the components that perform consciousness do?

I don't know, and irrelevant to my point.

 

[Belz...]

Not according to what others are saying:

"Human brains store information using many different strategies, none of which are very analogous to binary in a digital computer."
Paul King, Computational Neuroscientist

MIT neuroscientist, Guosong Liu, has found that human neurons compute in trinary, using signals that are the equivalents of -1, 0 and 1.

The brain as a whole operates more like a social network than a digital computer, with neurons communicating to allow learning and the creation of memory, according to O'Reilly.
psychology Professor Randall O'Reilly

You're using a far too narrow definition of computer, whereas some people are using a far too broad one. Your PC is not the only possible type of computer.

 

[Belz...]

He's a dualist. He produces antifruit.

Or, more likely, fruit and fruit spirit.

 

[PixyMisa]

Not according to what others are saying:

"Human brains store information using many different strategies, none of which are very analogous to binary in a digital computer."
Paul King, Computational Neuroscientist

MIT neuroscientist, Guosong Liu, has found that human neurons compute in trinary, using signals that are the equivalents of -1, 0 and 1.

So, what you're saying is that the brain is a trinary pulse-coded switched digital network?

I'm fine with that (if the evidence supports it). That makes it a computer.

The brain as a whole operates more like a social network than a digital computer, with neurons communicating to allow learning and the creation of memory, according to O'Reilly.

Yes, it's a pulse-coded switched digital network. That makes it a computer.

 

[tensordyne]

That's what everyone means by consciousness, from Descartes to, well, you. That's the whole point.

I do not like people putting words in my mouth. I do not mean what you mean by the word consciousness, of that, I am pretty sure.

Wrong.

That is not an argument.

 

[Fudbucker]

You're using a far too narrow definition of computer, whereas some people are using a far too broad one.

I am? We are? Evidence?

However you want to define computer, the people I quoted (experts in the field) believe the brain does not operate like a computer in at least some areas.

Your PC is not the only possible type of computer.

Never said it was. The claim is that a "BRAIN IS A COMPUTER". It's still not clear what Pixy means by this (member of a set or are they one and the same?). If you could pin him down, that'd be great.

Either way, if the brain is a computer (or a kind of computer), it's working in non-computerlike ways. That presents a challenge to the claim.

 

[Fudbucker]

So, what you're saying is that the brain is a trinary pulse-coded switched digital network?

I'm fine with that (if the evidence supports it). That makes it a computer.

[/quote]

That makes it work in trinary. Are there any trinary computers out there?

Yes, it's a pulse-coded switched digital network. That makes it a computer.

Not what Oreilly said:
"the brain as a whole operates more like a social network than a digital computer, with neurons communicating to allow learning and the creation of memory, according to O'Reilly."

And not according to Paul King. You didn't address that quote: "Human brains store information using many different strategies, none of which are very analogous to binary in a digital computer."
Paul King, Computational Neuroscientist

 

[steenkh]

That makes it work in trinary. Are there any trinary computers out there?[/QUOTE]
No. What is the point?

It has been considered many times to switch to trinary computing, but many physical storage systems are naturally digital, and it is very difficult to distinguish between trinary voltages with sufficient accuracy. The brain on the other hand is known to be error prone, but that does not make it less of a computer.

Not what Oreilly said:
"the brain as a whole operates more like a social network than a digital computer, with neurons communicating to allow learning and the creation of memory, according to O'Reilly."

Are you suggesting that O'Reilly thinks that each neuron has intelligence in itself? I do not think so, but in any case that would not stop the brain being a computer, it will simply make the computer more complex, and that can be emulated too.

And not according to Paul King. You didn't address that quote: "Human brains store information using many different strategies, none of which are very analogous to binary in a digital computer."
Paul King, Computational Neuroscientist

But computing is not limited to a certain storage system, so this is irrelevant for the discussion. Even if neurons turned out to be completely analog, it would pose no particular problem.

 

[rocketdodger]

Right.

A neural network^WP like the brain is different on the surface from a stored-program computer^WP, but per the Church-Turing thesis^WP they have mathematically identical expressive power.

Anything one can do, the other can do. Always.

Yes but when you say that it doesn't make it clear that the physical connectivity of the neurons is important. I honestly think piggy ( and others ) thinks the computationalist position is that the brain is like a stored program computer, that it can just be loaded up with any set of instructions and run any program because the architecture is so generalized.