On Consciousness

[Jeff Corey]

Arrrgh, Captn.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Yes. Life extension.

I'm in the 3% range.
The only thing not alive and conscious in this universe is my Mr. Coffee, and the a-holes that think it is conscious, even though they only recently allowed that blacks are human.

Quarky, this thread is in the science category, and you seem cock-sure consciousness is not just computation. Got any science to support your position?

 

[PixyMisa]

So, what is the answer? Or are you like other computer experts who merely assert that is simple because of their vast experience so that they claim they instantly comprehended the problem and immediately knew the answer without reading the question?
I call BS.

8, to make sure it's red on the other side, and brown, to make sure it's odd on the other side. There's nothing that says an odd card can't be red on the other side or likewise that a red card can't be odd on the other side, so we don't care about 3 and red.

Any good computer programmer has spent years doing that sort of thing, and won't have a problem with the puzzle. Which makes it a good test for potential hires... At least briefly, until the news gets around.

Took me a couple of seconds.

 

[PixyMisa]

You know, program a computer that would honestly wonder why red has that quality of redness, above and beyond the mere fact that it's a particular wavelength of light reaching its sensor.

That level of abstract thought is vastly more complex than just having the subjective experience in the first place.

The subjective impression we get that gives us that nagging dualist leaning.

Yes, but we know that's either wrong or useless, so we reject it.

If you have a computer that attains the level of human consciousness, wouldn't it, because of its intense subjective experiences, argue for dualism?

Why? I don't.

 

[PixyMisa]

Quarky, this thread is in the science category, and you seem cock-sure consciousness is not just computation. Got any science to support your position?

Let's start with getting a single coherent sentence out of him, and work our way up, okay?

 

[Democracy Simulator]

It seems that there is SRIP happening in my brain that I am not aware of and SRIP happening in my brain that I am aware of. In other words SRIP is not the same as awareness.

Surely this awareness is more like the idea of consciousness and isn't it an important question to ask just what is it about the physical system of our brain and the patterns of neurons firing inside it which mean that some patterns produce awareness of their activity (or have awareness of their activity) and some do not?

 

[blobru]

SRIP happens.

 

[PixyMisa]

It seems that there is SRIP happening in my brain that I am not aware of and SRIP happening in my brain that I am aware of.

Correct.

In other words SRIP is not the same as awareness.

SRIP is specifically self-awareness, not awareness generally.

But the fact that there are multiple conscious processes active in your brain doesn't mean that you should be aware of them.

Surely this awareness is more like the idea of consciousness and isn't it an important question to ask just what is it about the physical system of our brain and the patterns of neurons firing inside it which mean that some patterns produce awareness of their activity (or have awareness of their activity) and some do not?

Nope.

 

[Darat]

Forgive me for asking a devil's advocate question:

You've defined consciousness in such a way that you can easily argue that it can be achieved with data processing. How would one program a computer that is reflective on its perception of its own qualia? If the idea of qualia is incoherent, then explain precisely why, then suggest a way a program might spontaneously experience something like this that has only incoherent definitions.

Pixy's definition whether you agree with it or not is coherent and offers something concrete to discuss. Isn't the actual problem that (often) other people won't provide a coherent definition of what they mean by conciousness?

 

[PixyMisa]

Pixy's definition whether you agree with it or not is coherent and offers something concrete to discuss. Isn't the actual problem that (often) other people won't provide a coherent definition of what they mean by conciousness?

He did say he was playing Devil's advocate. Since the Devil in this case is precisely the lack of coherent definitions, he was bound by the laws of logic to ask a meaningless question.

At least I think that's how this game works.

 

[Belz...]

Are you really retarded?
This thread is starting to feel like a spoof.

You hot-shots can't possibly be this stupid, can you?

Well,
blessings on you all.
I'm off to explore.

Not sure who this was directed at, but are you feeling ok ?

 

[Soapy Sam]

Ah, Soapy Sam.

That was a way cool post, imho. I'd nom it, but it might embarrass you later. I've had that happen.

All of this reminds me of a basic tenant that Einstein postulated:

You can't solve a problem from within the mind-set that created it.

This is the crux of my issue with various pragmatists attempting to describe the most obscure and subtle aspects of reality.

Is consciousness computational?

**** no. Not even close. Or at least, not even close to any of the computations illuminated in this thread. Its more of the usual nonsense. Its even lamer than cold fusion. Arrogance doesn't translate well as knowledge. Yet it tries and tries.
Too bad it chooses to not actually study consciousness.

I've studied it. I'm not sure what it is. I'm sure what it isn't.

I suspect we may be asking the wrong questions. The trouble is, I have no idea what other questions we should be asking and Pixy is perfectly right to point that out.

But on a personal level, I feel a tad more humility is in order from the computationists. Just because one suspects there may be a bit more to it than computation does not mean one is a spooky woo.
There may be wholly physical processes which involve known components interacting in as yet unfamiliar ways. We need postulate no vital principles or spiritual essences to say "we think it may be more complicated than that."
At a time when materials science is finding new physical effects often, I think it premature to rule out the possibility that for consciousness to exist brains may have to be built in a particular way, which happens to be the way nature has recently started to build them.

 

[Soapy Sam]

He did say he was playing Devil's advocate. Since the Devil in this case is precisely the lack of coherent definitions, he was bound by the laws of logic to ask a meaningless question.

At least I think that's how this game works.

Another possibility is that the question (or some question) is not meaningless, but that we are at the moment unable to see what the meaning is.

Things change in science. A year or a decade hence, both sides in this discussion could look equally naive.

 

[Jeff Corey]

"...both sides..."?

 

[Soapy Sam]

Such as?

Who says conscious awareness is a predictable developmental property?

Pixy does, in the computing context. He says it's an emergent property of computation. The reason I invoked god above is because in the evolutionary context, by definition there can be no prediction of intelligence, as there is no intelligence there to predict it, until there is intelligence, by which time prediction is a tad post hoc. (Like all the best prophecy)

In the whole universe? - have you looked?
Fossil evidence of conscious awareness? how would that work?

There's the rub. Lots of people are looking for fossils , but how do they interpret them? If we find a flint scraper in an Eocene lake bed, do we postulate a proto primate culture, or dismiss it as a result of earth movements or just a bizarre freaky bit of flint? Is anyone looking for prehuman archaeology, except for those we are apt to label "woo"?
No, I have not looked. Have you heard of any evidence of prehuman intelligence that you would not unhesitatingly dismiss as "woo"?
Nor me. Doesn't mean it's not out there.
I can't help feeling if awareness is a good trick (and it seems so bound to intelligence the two are essentially one) then it should have evolved many times. Either it did , suggesting it's fairly easy to do and perhaps strengthening the "any hardware" model, or it has happened once in 3500 million years of evolution, which suggests there is something very special about the way human brains are built and that suggests its going to be less easy to copy.
Some evidence would be good. So far, the dearth thereof supports the special model, but maybe we ought to look harder?
There is also the uncomfortable conclusion that if it did evolve many times, it does not seem to have done so well.

If you want a left-field potential candidate for conscious awareness, the octopus has some interesting behaviours that suggest some aspects. As a cephalopod mollusc, it has a very different neural architecture than mammals - but it is organic, there's no denying.

Indeed. Interesting beasties.

Ah, this could be the problem. Sounds like the old anti-evolutionary canard, 'what use is half a xxx?' [insert feature of choice]

That's exactly why I made the ID comment. I assume you find nothing illogical about the question itself, but like most of us you would argue that evolution works by modifying existing body parts. I agree totally.
But this is not a body part.

Do you think that as children grow, their developing conscious awareness is useless until it is 'working 100%'? what do you even mean by 'conscious awareness working 100%'? are we humans now 100% consciously aware, have we attained maximum conscious awareness? conscious to the max?

I think it's either there or it isn't. That does not stop it changing and growing within one life or over evolutionary history. But it's either there or it isn't. And here, I think we are getting closer to each other.
If consciousness starts as something else- then what?
If it can develop further- then into what? That is pretty much the question I was trying to get at last night.

Unsupported argument from ignorance (no offence). That you can't see how something working less than '100%' can have a selective advantage says more about you than the property in question.

None taken. I'm aware of (some of) my limits. But if consciousness is not an actual example of something which is either on or not on, I can't think of a better one. I admit I ain't the sharpest knife in this box. I'm here to learn and open to suggestions.
An eye that works as a light sensor is a light sensor. It's not the Hubble, but it may not have to be. It's a basis for selection to work on.
But consciousness is surely either there or it's not? (There may be degrees, but there must be a point below which one is not conscious and above which, one is. If you disagree, then we are thinking of consciousness surprisingly differently. Could you explain how you think of partial consciousness?

You seem to be either equating or confusing intelligence and conscious awareness, I'm not sure which.

It's the drink! But I think intelligence is a prerequisite for CaW in an evolutionary context. Whether it is in a computing context I have no idea.

 

[Dancing David]

There may be wholly physical processes which involve known components interacting in as yet unfamiliar ways. We need postulate no vital principles or spiritual essences to say "we think it may be more complicated than that."

Um, really?

And while I understand you are talking about some small scale phenomena.

What is more complicated than a trillion neurons with each having on average 2,000 cross connections. Why isn't the known component system possibly sufficient?

If you are just saying 'it is possible' that is fine.

But there is no reason to think there is anything extra at this point. It would be like saying that the internet might have something as yet unknown. There may well be, but I don't see any reason to believe so.

So what reason or evidence do you have? (Unless this is in the : it is possible.)

 

[Soapy Sam]

Um, really?

Why "um"?

And while I understand you are talking about some small scale phenomena.

What is more complicated than a trillion neurons with each having on average 2,000 cross connections. Why isn't the known component system possibly sufficient?

The known component system clearly is sufficient.
I just think that in a system that complex, there may be complications of which we are as yet unaware.
A horse and cart is sufficient to carry coal, but there's a lot more to horses than meets the eye.

The problem for me is not that the complexity of the human brain can produce complex effects. We know it does. My problem starts when it is suggested that a much less complex device, using quite different architecture, produces the same effects. This I find improbable.

Now I accept there's a question of degree. Nobody (I think) is saying a computer is producing consciousness of the same order as a human brain, but the computational argument is that what it produces is, ignoring the matter of degree, the same phenomenon. I see no reason that would be so. It may be something that produces very similar results in one area. But is it the same thing?
Pardon my flat Earth scepticism, but I have seen absolutely nothing to make me think computers experience anything analogous to awareness.
If there is direct evidence of this, point me at it and I'll be fascinated.
I do not insist that it is impossible, merely that I have seen nothing to make me think it happens.

If you are just saying 'it is possible' that is fine.

I'm certainly not saying anything is impossible. I just want some evidence that it's probable.

But there is no reason to think there is anything extra at this point. It would be like saying that the internet might have something as yet unknown. There may well be, but I don't see any reason to believe so.

It wouldn't be like that really. People built the Internet. We basically know how it does what it does. We didn't build brains and (unless it's something I haven't read of) we haven't built conscious computers either.

So what reason or evidence do you have? (Unless this is in the : it is possible.)

It seems to be rare, perhaps unique in nature. (see previous post). If it is unique, then it seems to be a hard thing for evolution to develop. That of course doesn't mean it's hard to develop artificially (think of the wheel), but it does suggest it is not simple to reproduce in any old hardware.
Absence of evidence ...
Frankly, I don't see much evidence on either side of the debate, unless we restrict it strictly to Pixy's definition. If we are going to consider any self referential processing as conscious, then yes, it's all around us.

If I define air as free money, then we're all rich. Not sure we're much better off though.

[/quote]

 

[PixyMisa]

But on a personal level, I feel a tad more humility is in order from the computationists. Just because one suspects there may be a bit more to it than computation does not mean one is a spooky woo.

It does mean that you don't understand the physics and mathematics behind it though.

There may be wholly physical processes which involve known components interacting in as yet unfamiliar ways. We need postulate no vital principles or spiritual essences to say "we think it may be more complicated than that."

That's what I mean. There is no "more complicated than that", not in any fundamental sense. Once a system is Turing-complete, all you can do is make it bigger.

At a time when materials science is finding new physical effects often, I think it premature to rule out the possibility that for consciousness to exist brains may have to be built in a particular way, which happens to be the way nature has recently started to build them.

But that position is baseless unless you can find a way to disprove the Church-Turing Thesis^WP - which has held up for 80 years.

 

[Soapy Sam]

"...both sides..."?

I don't see why not, Jeff.

It's possible for someone to be very knowlegable about one aspect of a matter and arrive at wrong conclusions, while someone wholly ignorant of the matter comes to equally wrong but different conclusions; simply because there was one bit of the puzzle that neither of them happened to know at one point.

Or do you mean there is only one / more than two sides?

Or summat else entirely?

 

[Democracy Simulator]

Correct.

SRIP is specifically self-awareness, not awareness generally.

So if I am aware that fireworks are going off, for example, that is not SRIP? Does it only become SRIP if I am aware of my awareness that the fireworks are going off?

Additionally, how do you define self? That seems to be as tricky as defining consciousness.