On Consciousness

[Dancing David]

Did Einstein believe the space-time continuum was quantised?

Do you know the difference, I am sorry the math of tensors is beyond me, can you show where the energy pf particles is not quantised?

Asking about the TOE is not a free pass on evidence, where is the evidence that consciousness is not just biochemistry?

 

[Dancing David]

I think you need to read what I asked more carefully.

Let me put it in a slightly different way.

I claim that it is at least possible that biological brains (including obviously, human brains) may be able to accomplish something that a Universal Turing machine cannot, even in a theoretical sense. I'm not talking about purely "plumbing" type capabilities such as being able to absorb nutrients from blood or whatever, but rather the kinds of things (whatever they may be) that may be needed to achieve consciousness, self-awareness, and similar.

I'm not saying that I have any reason to believe this is necessarily very likely - just that it at least possible.

And how would you know this, how are you defining consciousness?

It is possible that there are little monkeys on motor scooters instead of electrons as well, but there are reasons to believe that is not a valid theory.

Magical thinking about consciousness?

A dog is conscious, does this apply to dogs and hamsters or just humans?

 

[PixyMisa]

Says who? Oh. Yeah. PixyMisa.

You seem to have missed out on at least a hundred years of physics. I'll give you time to catch up.

Would you bet your life that all relevant attributes of the Universe are "quantised"?

I do, every day.

 

[PixyMisa]

I claim that it is at least possible that biological brains (including obviously, human brains) may be able to accomplish something that a Universal Turing machine cannot, even in a theoretical sense.

I have three replies to this:

1. No it's not.

2. You can't define such a thing.

3. You can't propose a mechanism for such a thing.

What you're talking about is known as a hypercomputer^WP. They're very interesting, and entirely impossible.

 

[Belz...]

You (and PixyMisa) appear to believe that humankind has basically got it all figured out already...

No.

Do you believe that there is necessarily a finite "Theory of Everything" waiting to be discovered, and that when/if that is finally uncovered then (in principle) there will be nothing within "the Universe" that cannot be fully understood and perhaps even "perfectly" simulated?

Probably.

If yes, why?

There is a finite number of physical principles and phenomena in the universe.

I mean, why are you drawn to that idea as opposed to the alternative that there is no "bottom level" set of rules and so it really is a case of "turtles all the way down"?

Parsimony.

 

[Belz...]

I think you need to read what I asked more carefully.

So do I, apparently, because his explanation is exactly why I answered what I did.

I claim that it is at least possible that biological brains (including obviously, human brains) may be able to accomplish something that a Universal Turing machine cannot, even in a theoretical sense.

Then you need to explain yourself very precisely because it sounds like you don't understand what a Turing machine is.

 

[annnnoid]

There is no evidence of any events in consciousness that are not biochemistry.

…except the as yet undefined fact of consciousness itself. Pixy will, I'm sure, take grave exception to this conclusion as well....convinced as he is that various of his computerized contraptions have achieved the quality known as consciousness without resort to biochemistry of any kind (elctro-chemistry perhaps....is that related?).

That is what’s referred to as a category error. Consciousness is consciousness. Biochemistry is biochemistry. The relationship between the two has yet to be understood. A comparison could be made to physics. There are no events in biochemistry that are not physics. That particular relationship is well understood. The equivalent consciousness / biochemical relationship barely exists even as a question….and this fact is acknowledged by just about any neuro-biologist currently working in the area.

A dog is conscious, does this apply to dogs and hamsters or just humans?

A dog is conscious ???? Where has this fact been definitively established? From what I understand…consciousness itself has yet to achieve anything remotely resembling a universally accepted definition so it is likely premature to assign the category to dogs or anything else.

 

[dlorde]

Did Einstein believe the space-time continuum was quantised?

I have no idea; given his work, I'm sure he would have thought about it.

 

[PixyMisa]

…except the as yet undefined fact of consciousness itself.

If you can't define it, how do you know? And if others have defined it, how can it be undefined?

A dog is conscious ???? Where has this fact been definitively established?

Dogs are certainly conscious by minimal definitions - as would likely be true of all mammals and most vertebrates (but would not be true of many insects) - but they don't pass the mirror test. The mirror test is a specifically visual test, and dogs aren't primarily visual creatures, but it does mark them as slightly dim.

From what I understand…consciousness itself has yet to achieve anything remotely resembling a universally accepted definition so it is likely premature to assign the category to dogs or anything else.

No, that's just you.

 

[Belz...]

…except the as yet undefined fact of consciousness itself.

1) How is consciousness undefined ?
2) Aren't you just projecting, here ?
3) Assuming it is undefined, how does that make it not biological ?

That is what’s referred to as a category error. Consciousness is consciousness. Biochemistry is biochemistry.

Flying is flying. Sleeping is sleeping. Love is love. Eating is eating. Oh, wait...

The relationship between the two has yet to be understood.

The exact mechanics of flying were not fully understood but we knew that flapping wings was pretty much the way to go a long time ago, etc.

A dog is conscious ????

See, there's your problem. You have no idea what the word means (not 'dog', but 'consciousness'.) Of course a dog is conscious. I've yet to see a definition of consciousness that would exclude dogs. It might not be conscious like a human, but that's beside the point.

 

[dlorde]

I think you need to read what I asked more carefully.

I did; the question you actually asked was answered. The question below is different.

Let me put it in a slightly different way.

I claim that it is at least possible that biological brains (including obviously, human brains) may be able to accomplish something that a Universal Turing machine cannot, even in a theoretical sense. I'm not talking about purely "plumbing" type capabilities such as being able to absorb nutrients from blood or whatever, but rather the kinds of things (whatever they may be) that may be needed to achieve consciousness, self-awareness, and similar.

I'm not saying that I have any reason to believe this is necessarily very likely - just that it at least possible.

I agree it is possible, in the sense that anything, short of magic, is possible. But AIUI there is no evidence of such non-computable functioning in the brain, no evidence that it is necessary for consciousness or self-awareness, and no evidence of any mechanism to support it. Having said that, I wouldn't be totally stunned if some form of 'super-Turing computation' is shown to occur, i.e. computational function beyond the standard Turing model; neural networks can apparently be configured this way (although there are some pragmatic doubts). I don't really see this as a problem, but it does lead into potentially murky waters of how we define computation and computational equivalence and the limitations of the standard Turing model.

It seems to me that until we understand more of the function and capabilities of the complex neural networks in the brain, the reasonable view is that they account for consciousness and self-awareness by computational means, be it Turing Complete or super-Turing. It should go without saying that it is a provisional explanation, as for all scientific explanations.

 

[steenkh]

A dog is conscious ???? Where has this fact been definitively established?

Are you saying that all the money people spend on rendering their dogs unconscious during surgical operations is money wasted?

 

[Belz...]

Wouldn't that just redefine the Turing model ?

 

[annnnoid]

From what I understand…consciousness itself has yet to achieve anything remotely resembling a universally accepted definition so it is likely premature to assign the category to dogs or anything else.

No, that's just you.

.…and, apparently, the folks behind this statement who can reasonably claim to represent a significant cross-section of the cog-sci community.

"We have no idea how consciousness emerges from the physical activity of the brain and we do not know whether consciousness can emerge from non-biological systems, such as computers... At this point the reader will expect to find a careful and precise definition of consciousness. You will be disappointed. Consciousness has not yet become a scientific term that can be defined in this way. Currently we all use the term consciousness in many different and often ambiguous ways. Precise definitions of different aspects of consciousness will emerge ... but to make precise definitions at this stage is premature."

There are, quite obviously, fundamental disagreements. Which is the point. Dennet didn’t ‘explain’ it, he simply tried to (…explain it away…). Hofstadter tried as well. There is as yet no consensus on the issue, as the above statement clearly indicates. The achievement of an explicit adjudication of the condition of human consciousness would be news multiple orders of magnitude greater than the Higgs Boson. Short of discovering evidence of God, such a thing would likely be regarded as the most significant discovery in the history of history. A Nobel would be a formality.

I have yet to notice an event of this magnitude. Have you?

1) How is consciousness undefined ?
2) Aren't you just projecting, here ?
3) Assuming it is undefined, how does that make it not biological ?

Flying is flying. Sleeping is sleeping. Love is love. Eating is eating. Oh, wait...

The exact mechanics of flying were not fully understood but we knew that flapping wings was pretty much the way to go a long time ago, etc.

See, there's your problem. You have no idea what the word means (not 'dog', but 'consciousness'.) Of course a dog is conscious. I've yet to see a definition of consciousness that would exclude dogs. It might not be conscious like a human, but that's beside the point.

Y’know Belz….there was a brief period after Tensor gave you that unexpected compliment that you started sounding like someone other than Pixy. That period appears to have expired. I guess imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

 

[annnnoid]

Are you saying that all the money people spend on rendering their dogs unconscious during surgical operations is money wasted?

"We have no idea how consciousness emerges from the physical activity of the brain and we do not know whether consciousness can emerge from non-biological systems, such as computers... At this point the reader will expect to find a careful and precise definition of consciousness. You will be disappointed. Consciousness has not yet become a scientific term that can be defined in this way. Currently we all use the term consciousness in many different and often ambiguous ways. Precise definitions of different aspects of consciousness will emerge ... but to make precise definitions at this stage is premature."

 

[rocketdodger]

Perhaps it could mean mathematically and logically false? In that case I believe we can say it does not exist. Correct me if i am wrong, but Gödel's incompleteness theorem is not an uncertainty theorem; it does not say that there are some false statements that are true, it says that there are some true statements that we cannot derive with a formal system.

Yes, correct.

But in the case of a five-cornered-square, is that mathematically false, or logically false? Or is it an impossibility? And what is the distinction?

The statement "a square has five corners" is false. You could say a mathematical formulation of that statement is a falsehood. The proof isn't consistent. Whatever.

But the statement "I am imagining a square with five corners," is not necessarily false, because it includes non-trivial references to "I" and "imagining," the definition of which is variable and vague. In particular, a full expansion of the formal defintion of "imagining" will implicitly define what the meaning of the statement is. If it turns out that what I mean by "square with five corners" is actually a pentagon, then my statement is true in a sense, because I am indeed imagining a pentagon.

So I would instead in that case say that a five-cornered-square is a mathematical impossibility, not merely a mathematical falsehood, so whatever I am imagining, it definitely isn't that.

If that makes any sense....

 

[Belz...]

Y’know Belz….there was a brief period after Tensor gave you that unexpected compliment that you started sounding like someone other than Pixy. That period appears to have expired. I guess imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

That's an interesting way to address my points -- that is, by not addressing them at all.

Don't you want to try again and not appear like you're dodging, this time ?

 

[rocketdodger]

Do you claim that is it strictly "physically impossible" for any human brain to do any kind of "computations" or "cognitive tasks" that can't be achieved by any theoretical Turing Complete computing system?

How about the same question but substituting "logically impossible" or "mathematically impossible"?

Note that I've use the words "strictly" and "impossible" to be as clear as I can that a positive response from you will not actually mean that you think it's just "unlikely", or "very unlikely", or "impossible according to current knowledge", or some such similar variation, but in fact absolutely, completely, "I'll-bet-my-life-on-it" impossible, now and for always.

Yes.

However, this has nothing to do with consciousness -- it is impossible to even define a physical analog to a computation or cognitive task that can't be achieved by any theoretical Turing complete computing system.

Meaning, if you have a system of particles, they ain't ever gonna do any hypercomputation.

And before you go all Penrose on me, you should know that quantum computing is not hypercomputing. It is understood that if a quantum computer is ever realized, it will also be merely Turing equivalent, no more.

 

[Dancing David]

…except the as yet undefined fact of consciousness itself.

If it is undefined then how do you refer to it?

Pixy will, I'm sure, take grave exception to this conclusion as well....convinced as he is that various of his computerized contraptions have achieved the quality known as consciousness without resort to biochemistry of any kind (elctro-chemistry perhaps....is that related?).

Hypothesis that such an entity as a computer could be similar to consciousness is still a hypothesis.

That is what’s referred to as a category error. Consciousness is consciousness.

Then explain where exactly is consciousness that is not a product of biochemistry.

It is not a category error, it is a flase dichotomy on your part.

And more sophistry.

Biochemistry is biochemistry. The relationship between the two has yet to be understood.

That is ********, there are part of it that are well understood and parts that aren't, but are making up some vague problem of consciousness.

So where is this consciousness without biochemistry?

A comparison could be made to physics. There are no events in biochemistry that are not physics.

Duh

That particular relationship is well understood.

yes and no, but you want to say that some magic word named 'consciousness' is different. Which is either dualism or sohistry.

So where is consciousness without biochemistry, with the invisible pink unicorn in my garage?

The equivalent consciousness / biochemical relationship barely exists even as a question….

Says who, not neruobiologists, maybe philosophers making desperate grasps as a declining position of sophistry, where is a neuroanatomist who studies attention and arousal saying that?

Or just one person?

Really, a lack of perfect understanding does not mean a lack of some understanding.

Or are you a 'brain as TV receiver of consciousness' type of person.

Where are the hordes of neurologists saying this, or is this where you will find the equivalent of climate change deniers and deniers of evolution.

Put you cards on the table.

and this fact is acknowledged by just about any neuro-biologist currently working in the area.

********, who said what exactly. or is this just some over generalization and false dichotomy on your part. Who exactly says that?

A lack of complete understanding is not a lack of understanding, so who made these claims, exactly? Where and when?

A dog is conscious ???? Where has this fact been definitively established?

So you don't even know the common medical definition of consciousness and you think that a dog is not conscious? You brag about you knowing about what neurobiologists commonly think and you make such a naive statemet?

What you mean is that you want consciousness defined in some special way but are a sophist at heart and can't present direct evidence of your weak argument.

I will mark that down as special pleading, magical thinking and ignorance.

We are in the SMT forum, so the standard common definition of medical consciousness would apply.

Not some Vague Problem of Consciousness.

From what I understand…consciousness itself has yet to achieve anything remotely resembling a universally accepted definition

So you don't know squat about neurology? Why did you say something about neuro biology and common beliefs?

There is a common definition, just not a magical one.

so it is likely premature to assign the category to dogs or anything else.

Argue from ignorance much?

 

[Dancing David]

Are you saying that all the money people spend on rendering their dogs unconscious during surgical operations is money wasted?

Or that they are a believer in the the Vague Problem of Consciousness.