On Consciousness

[Roboramma]

I can detect my own consciousness. Right now I am aware of a feeling on the back of my neck that I interpret as the sun shining on it. Are you a ZombieBeelzeBuddy?

Cool, if that's what consciousness is, it's extremely obvious that computers can be conscious, and that consciousness is just information processing.

 

[Fudbucker]

Define conscious. Do you mean awake?

Define pornography. But you know it when you see it

 

[Clive]

That's not consciousness, that's sensation.

I said I was aware of the sensation.

Not just that I was a system that could detect the effect of sunlight falling on my surface (and perhaps react to that in some way).

I was having a subjective experience. If I had been fast asleep (i.e. not conscious, or very close to that), then my conscious awareness of the sunlight falling on my skin would have been very much reduced and probably close enough to nil.

What do you think consciousness is, given that you clearly believe you know what it is not?

 

[Clive]

Cool, if that's what consciousness is, it's extremely obvious that computers can be conscious, and that consciousness is just information processing.

Is a Python interpreter aware of some feeling.... mmmm, nice.... adding.... when it executes 1+2+3 ? How can you tell?

Perhaps you can paraphrase what I said and explain how your interpretation of that led to your conclusion that therefore "it's extremely obvious that computers can be conscious"?

 

[PixyMisa]

Anecdote alert! Warning Will Robinson!!

The robot would have been much more awesome if he'd said that.

How about living?

Bah. Overrated.

 

[PixyMisa]

Neither Dennett nor Hoftsatdter are relevant experts. One is a philosopher, the other is a physicist. Why would you think what they have to say is germane to the discussion?

Because they present an extremely convincing case.

You seem particularly fixated on a couple books you've read (Strange Loop, GEB). Where are the peer-reviewed papers that support those ideas? They don't seem to exist.

Have you looked?

There are many problems with the definition:
1. It leads to absurdities no one takes seriously (conscious cars?)

That's not an absurdity; it's just a conclusion you dislike.

2. It is undefined (self, information, and processing are unclear terms)

Simply untrue. They may be unclear to you, but that would be because you're not paying attention. They are all defined.

3. Authorities who study brains don't define consciousness as SRIP

Quote mining in reverse.

4. It does not explain the phenomenon of subjective experience

That is precisely what it does explain. What it doesn't give you is a magic bean, because no magic bean is required (and of course, no magic bean can exist).

 

[PixyMisa]

Almost all mammals dream, but few or no other animals.

I think birds have been found to dream as well, though I have no reputable source for that data.

It would be interesting if birds and mammals dream but reptiles do not, as it would suggest that this behaviour evolved independently in each.

 

[Belz...]

You never responded. Fair to bring Dennett into the discussion? Or is your view of philosophy in flux?

In other words you made it up, and now you're trying to fudge the data to hide that fact.

 

[Belz...]

It's been informative about the skeptical culture here. Many posters (in this thread at least), are comfortable with downright wooish claims: computers and cars are conscious. I expected more vigorous debate.

To be fair, it has to do entirely with Pixy's definition. But given that no one else has apparently tried to give us a definition of consciousness, I'll go with that one.

Oh, hey, why don't you give us your definition ?

 

[Jeff Corey]

I think birds have been found to dream as well, though I have no reputable source for that data.

It would be interesting if birds and mammals dream but reptiles do not, as it would suggest that this behaviour evolved independently in each.

I recall that REM sleep is correlated with warm bloodedness and birds show it in short bursts, perhaps involving electric annelids.

 

[Dancing David]

It's been informative about the skeptical culture here. Many posters (in this thread at least), are comfortable with downright wooish claims: computers and cars are conscious. I expected more vigorous debate.

I expect you can do better than generalization and appeal to emotion.

 

[Dancing David]

what is the brain doing when we are asleep? Ya know, that state of mind that's uber-evolutionary as every living thing does it to an extent, the altered state of consciousness we spend half of our lives in.

Why is the brain just as active when we are asleep, and not even REM dreaming, as it is when awake?

The brain is not "just as active when we are asleep", that is silly. It is active but in different ways.

So care to provide an actual citation with metrics for your claim?

 

[Dancing David]

That's not required:

I can define dark energy as the energy produced by invisible unicorns frolicking all around us.

Nobody has to offer a "better" definition in order to ridicule mine. Sometimes "I don't know" has to suffice until more information comes in.

This is rhetoric, and empty of content regarding consciousness. There are many working definitions of consciousness that do not involve Pixy Misa's

 

[Dancing David]

Dark energy's actually a good analogy. We dont really know what it is, we can't detect it, but we know it has to be there because of its measurable effects. Whereas consciousness is something that everyone thinks they know what it is, but no one can detect it, and it has no measurable effects. It's a poor concept.

Well, except as used in medicine and neurology.



But that is is not the reified noun of consciousness, it is more an active set of behaviors.

 

[Dancing David]

I can detect my own consciousness. Right now I am aware of a feeling on the back of my neck that I interpret as the sun shining on it. Are you a ZombieBeelzeBuddy?

Nope. that is you applying the label 'consciousness' to the perceptions.



So are perceptions consciousness?

 

[Dancing David]

Define pornography. But you know it when you see it

So you aren't here to do more than spin?

 

[punshhh]

Nope. that is you applying the label 'consciousness' to the perceptions.



So are perceptions consciousness?

The state of a flow of living perceptions and experiences. Operating as an entity embedded in real time (the physical present).

In order to be conscious similar to a human such an entity would require a body similar to a human body.

 

[Dancing David]

You mean like dogs have a body similar?

What about Helen Keller?

 

[Roboramma]

Is a Python interpreter aware of some feeling.... mmmm, nice.... adding.... when it executes 1+2+3 ? How can you tell?

What's the got to do with what you said? What's it got to do with my response?

That computers can be conscious doesn't mean all computers are conscious.

Perhaps you can paraphrase what I said and explain how your interpretation of that led to your conclusion that therefore "it's extremely obvious that computers can be conscious"?

Sure, you said: "I can detect my own consciousness. Right now I am aware of a feeling on the back of my neck that I interpret as the sun shining on it." Similarly, with a photosensitive detector attached to a computer, one could program a computer to respond to the presence of sunlight shining on the detector with the interpretation "the sun is shining on the detector".

We could confirm this by asking the computer, maybe through text, "is the sun shining on your detector?", and if it said "yes", going and looking. Similarly do the same for the response "no". Is it right consistently right? If so it's aware of the sun shining on its detector.

To put my point more clearly: there is no distinguishable difference between your "awareness" and that of the computer to the outside observer.

 

[Darat]

For those that apparently have a better or different definition for conciousness than the one Pixy uses - what exactly is it?

Sad to say every time I've asked this in the past all I get back is waffle or yet another restatement of Descartes circular argument "I think, therefore I am" or worse a definition that we already know (from our understanding of reality) is wrong. Fingers crossed this will be the time when at least an alternate coherent definition is provided because quite sincerely it would be good to have more to debate about this topic!