On Consciousness

[annnnoid]

According to Pixy's definition of consciousness, sure. Thing is, Pixy is using a rather extreme definition. I doubt anyone but Pixy truly shares it. Yet it keeps coming up because no one's put forth a better one, only argued from incredulity as you are doing here. "I can't accept that cars can be conscious, therefore you are wrong" is a much weaker argument than "here is a better definition in which cars are not conscious, therefore you are wrong." If you want vigor, do your part and come up with something to debate.

What is interesting to note is just how few people do actually share Pixy’s conclusions. Here, and anywhere else. What is also interesting to note is that Pixy does not state that his theory is just that…a theory, or provisional, or hypothetical, or tentative, or anything else. Pixy flat out insists that he is 100% correct. He has definitively solved some of the biggest questions in science (which, he insists, are not really that big after all):

- what is consciousness
- is consciousness computational
- can a computer be conscious
- are there currently computers that are conscious

What is also interesting to note is just how few of the skeptics here challenge these positions (while at exactly the same time…insisting that they do not share them… or not entirely… or something [ever heard of damning with faint praise?])…while at exactly exactly the same time, constantly criticizing those who do.

It may come as a real insight but the reason no one has put forth a better definition may be precisely because the damn question is, as it’s been so often described, not bloody well understood. THAT…is the consensus position in the cog sci community (yes, Beelzebuddy…I did read the rest of the paragraph…and thanks for introducing a typically lame strawman). NOT that ‘we don’t know enough to use the stupid word’ or ‘we don’t know enough to speculate all over the place’ or ‘ we don’t know enough to do massive amounts of research and come to wide ranging conclusions about all sorts of things’.

Nobody is arguing whether Pixy’s definition is coherent or consistent within itself. It is. WHO THE HELL CARES!!!

What we’re arguing is that the general consensus in the cog sci community seems to be in the direction of ‘these are very complex questions’ ‘these may be the most complex questions that exist’ ‘there currently seem to be many different answers’ ‘we do not as yet understand the questions sufficiently to generate definitive answers’.

I could (and have) find many quotes from many active researchers who agree with these positions…both scientists and philosophers. Is this quote mining? Obviously. What it also just as obviously is…are the considered answers of a great many credible individuals to the basic questions that are being asked here. Simply put…”this is how Cristoph Koch has answered the question”…etc. etc.

The question is simple: Is there a general consensus in the cog sci community regarding these questions? What is it? Is it reasonable?

As to the points….Pixy blatantly challenges each of them:

- it’s a simple question
- there’s only one answer
- we not only know enough about this issue, we know enough about everything (Pixy has flat out claimed that we [whoever that is] know [unambiguously] how the universe works [tell me…who here agrees with this wildly optimistic conclusion? …this is, after all, the SMT forum…why don’t we take a simple poll]
- Pixy has insisted that his answer is not only right but conclusive

The simple fact is….the agenda of Pixy et. al.is philosophical, not scientific. They will take any steps available and necessary to argue and establish that there is nothing in any way unique or special about being human (Pixy has implied or stated this explicitly numerous times).

….which, if you begin with the equation:

Consciousness = information processing

…is quite accurate. Everything in the universe is information processing and therefore everything is essentially identical to everything else.

A quote from Bertrand Russell is in order:

“Brief and powerless is man’s life; on him and all his race the slow sure doom falls pitiless and dark. Blind to good and evil, reckless of destruction, omnipotent matter rolls on its relentless way.”

If, on the other hand, you wish to differentiate varieties of said processing according to obvious metrics you will inevitably have to conclude (as have innumerable people in the cog sci community from Scott Huettel and Christof Koch to RocketDodger himself), based on virtually every available standard, that being human is indeed not just special but very special…both subjectively and objectively.

The alternate agenda is equally transparent. There are simply those skeptics who cannot tolerate the fact of uncertainty or ignorance. Thus a “ question “ (if there is one) is either.... answered, trivial, or it simply doesn’t exist. ‘I (we) don’t know’ are not words that can be pronounced.


Summary:

Pixy has some well-thought-out answers to some very challenging questions.
Lots of very credible individuals do not agree with him. They are not idiots. The consensus seems to be in their favor.

 

[Roboramma]

Just a thought that keeps occuring to me reading this thread: being conscious implies being conscious of something. So, conscious of what?

The only answer compatible with a scientific worldview will be some form of information.

Does anyone disagree with that?

 

[Fudbucker]

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

Made what up?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

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

I think it's a catch-all term for an awake, behaving human brain. Each of the things the brain does - perception, sensation, attention, emotion - contributes in some fashion, without being consciousness themselves. As such, it's a terrible term to use in any discussion, much less an ostensibly scientific one, because it doesn't mean a damn thing on its own.

It's like arguing over which people, precisely, constitute the general public, in an environment where some participants refuse to acknowledge that anyone below middle-class should count, others keep saying that the terrain and wildlife should be included as well, and still others refuse to accept any definition which includes people at all because the general public is apparently some kind of floating inchoate thing.


On a more concrete note, you might be interested in the implications of my definition. Since consciousness is an umbrella term for many diverse actions, systems which display those actions (such as computer vision algorithms perceiving) can be said to be weakly conscious as well, just as a single person can be said to be a tiny bit of the general public.

 

[Fudbucker]

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

Again, it is not required to provide a definition of a term when critiquing someone else's. I can't define "grue", but I'll take you to task if you claim "grues" are four-sided triangles.

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!

That is because it is extremely difficult to define. Pixy has offered a definition that does not work and is not used by anyone who actually studies brains.

Three different medical definitions:

2. the somewhat loosely defined states of awareness of and response to stimuli, generally considered an integral component of the assessment of an individual's neurologic status. Levels of consciousness range from full consciousness (behavioral wakefulness, orientation as to time, place, and person, and a capacity to respond appropriately to stimuli) to deep coma (complete absence of response).


A clear state of awareness of self and the environment in which attention is focused on immediate matters, as distinguished from mental activity of an unconscious or subconscious nature.

1. The state or condition of being conscious.
2. A sense of one's personal or collective identity, especially the complex of attitudes, beliefs, and sensitivities held by or considered characteristic of an individual or a group.
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/consciousness

There's some overlap (awareness) but each definition is unique. That shows just how hard a problem consciousness is. Notice too that SRIP is nowhere to be found.

 

[Fudbucker]

Just a thought that keeps occuring to me reading this thread: being conscious implies being conscious of something. So, conscious of what?

The only answer compatible with a scientific worldview will be some form of information.

Does anyone disagree with that?

When you meditate, can't you clear your mind so you're not conscious of anything?

 

[Dancing David]

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!

Well there is the 'level of consciousness' as used by the medical profession
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK380/

Now again this will lead to a list of behaviors that define the state referred to as 'conscious' or 'consciousness'.

"The normal state of consciousness comprises either the state of wakefulness, awareness, or alertness in which most human beings function while not asleep or one of the recognized stages of normal sleep from which the person can be readily awakened."

 

[Dancing David]

Three different medical definitions:

2. the somewhat loosely defined states of awareness of and response to stimuli, generally considered an integral component of the assessment of an individual's neurologic status. Levels of consciousness range from full consciousness (behavioral wakefulness, orientation as to time, place, and person, and a capacity to respond appropriately to stimuli) to deep coma (complete absence of response).

And that is pretty much the standard used by the medical community and neurologists everyday:

Consciousness is comprised of a number of sub criteria
-orientation, recall, judgement, danger response plans. etc... (Which fall more into cognitive abilities but are part of consciousness)
-alertness; a reflection of the body's state of arousal and attention
-awareness: a reflection of response to stimuli

Now this neurological assessment of LOC is just for arousal and awareness and not the more detailed orientation
http://www.tbi-impact.org/cde/mod_t...cal_assessment_level_of_consciousness_PED.pdf

-

 

[Dancing David]

When you meditate, can't you clear your mind so you're not conscious of anything?

No, I can't

 

[Darat]

Again, it is not required to provide a definition of a term when critiquing someone else's. I can't define "grue", but I'll take you to task if you claim "grues" are four-sided triangles.

"Again" - I've never made the claim you are apparently arguing about.

...snip... Pixy has offered a definition that does not work and is not used by anyone who actually studies brains.

Lets start with your starting premise before we move on to see if the argument you build from it is at least logical or does demonstrate that the definition is wrong/inaccurate/fails in some other way.

So: How does Pixy's definition "not work"?

 

[dlorde]

... birds show it in short bursts, perhaps involving electric annelids.

I see what you did there ('do birds dream of...')

 

[Darat]

Duh - I wasn't concious of that meaning when I read it!

 

[Jeff Corey]

"Again" - I've never made the claim you are apparently arguing about.




Lets start with your starting premise before we move on to see if the argument you build from it is at least logical or does demonstrate that the definition is wrong/inaccurate/fails in some other way.

So: How does Pixy's definition "not work"?

Here is one version that psychologists may use: psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Conscious

"Consciousness is a combinatorial system of psychological aspects such as subjectivity, self-awareness, sentience, and the ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one's environment. It is a subject of much research in philosophy of mind, psychology, neuroscience, and cognitive science.
...In common parlance, consciousness denotes being awake and responsive to one's environment; this contrasts with being asleep or being in a coma."

Psychologists also study "states of consciousness", such as hypnosis, meditation and drug effects. Problem solving and impediments such as confirmation bias are also included in "Cognition" or thinking as aspects of consciousness.
No cars, though, that's right out.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

What is interesting to note is just how few people do actually share Pixy’s conclusions. Here, and anywhere else. What is also interesting to note is that Pixy does not state that his theory is just that…a theory, or provisional, or hypothetical, or tentative, or anything else. Pixy flat out insists that he is 100% correct. He has definitively solved some of the biggest questions in science (which, he insists, are not really that big after all):

- what is consciousness
- is consciousness computational
- can a computer be conscious
- are there currently computers that are conscious

What is also interesting to note is just how few of the skeptics here challenge these positions (while at exactly the same time…insisting that they do not share them… or not entirely… or something [ever heard of damning with faint praise?])…while at exactly exactly the same time, constantly criticizing those who do.

It may come as a real insight but the reason no one has put forth a better definition may be precisely because the damn question is, as it’s been so often described, not bloody well understood. THAT…is the consensus position in the cog sci community (yes, Beelzebuddy…I did read the rest of the paragraph…and thanks for introducing a typically lame strawman). NOT that ‘we don’t know enough to use the stupid word’ or ‘we don’t know enough to speculate all over the place’ or ‘ we don’t know enough to do massive amounts of research and come to wide ranging conclusions about all sorts of things’.

Nobody is arguing whether Pixy’s definition is coherent or consistent within itself. It is. WHO THE HELL CARES!!!

What we’re arguing is that the general consensus in the cog sci community seems to be in the direction of ‘these are very complex questions’ ‘these may be the most complex questions that exist’ ‘there currently seem to be many different answers’ ‘we do not as yet understand the questions sufficiently to generate definitive answers’.
I could (and have) find many quotes from many active researchers who agree with these positions…both scientists and philosophers. Is this quote mining? Obviously. What it also just as obviously is…are the considered answers of a great many credible individuals to the basic questions that are being asked here. Simply put…”this is how Cristoph Koch has answered the question”…etc. etc.

The question is simple: Is there a general consensus in the cog sci community regarding these questions? What is it? Is it reasonable?

As to the points….Pixy blatantly challenges each of them:

- it’s a simple question
- there’s only one answer
- we not only know enough about this issue, we know enough about everything (Pixy has flat out claimed that we [whoever that is] know [unambiguously] how the universe works [tell me…who here agrees with this wildly optimistic conclusion? …this is, after all, the SMT forum…why don’t we take a simple poll]
- Pixy has insisted that his answer is not only right but conclusive

The simple fact is….the agenda of Pixy et. al.is philosophical, not scientific. They will take any steps available and necessary to argue and establish that there is nothing in any way unique or special about being human (Pixy has implied or stated this explicitly numerous times).

….which, if you begin with the equation:

Consciousness = information processing

…is quite accurate. Everything in the universe is information processing and therefore everything is essentially identical to everything else.

A quote from Bertrand Russell is in order:

“Brief and powerless is man’s life; on him and all his race the slow sure doom falls pitiless and dark. Blind to good and evil, reckless of destruction, omnipotent matter rolls on its relentless way.”

If, on the other hand, you wish to differentiate varieties of said processing according to obvious metrics you will inevitably have to conclude (as have innumerable people in the cog sci community from Scott Huettel and Christof Koch to RocketDodger himself), based on virtually every available standard, that being human is indeed not just special but very special…both subjectively and objectively.

The alternate agenda is equally transparent. There are simply those skeptics who cannot tolerate the fact of uncertainty or ignorance. Thus a “ question “ (if there is one) is either.... answered, trivial, or it simply doesn’t exist. ‘I (we) don’t know’ are not words that can be pronounced.


Summary:

Pixy has some well-thought-out answers to some very challenging questions.
Lots of very credible individuals do not agree with him. They are not idiots. The consensus seems to be in their favor.

You still don't get it. "undefined" = "meaningless." They're not saying the questions are complex, they're saying they're a waste of time. That there is nothing to answer. That consciousness is not a valid concept which you can ask those questions about.

 

[Fudbucker]

"Again" - I've never made the claim you are apparently arguing about.

Sounded like you were complaining that those who don't agree with SRIP aren't posting their own definitions. That was my impression, anyway. I might be confusing you with another poster.

Lets start with your starting premise before we move on to see if the argument you build from it is at least logical or does demonstrate that the definition is wrong/inaccurate/fails in some other way.

So: How does Pixy's definition "not work"?

Post 2531

 

[Fudbucker]

You still don't get it. "undefined" = "meaningless." They're not saying the questions are complex, they're saying they're a waste of time. That there is nothing to answer. That consciousness is not a valid concept which you can ask those questions about.

Who's saying it's undefined? Consciousness is extensively defined, in many different (sometimes incompatible) ways. That's part of the problem.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Who's saying it's undefined? Consciousness is extensively defined, in many different (sometimes incompatible) ways. That's part of the problem.

The neuroscientists that Annnoid keeps quoting, when addressing the question of what consciousness is: "Consciousness has not yet become a scientific term that can be defined in this way."

 

[PixyMisa]

What is interesting to note is just how few people do actually share Pixy’s conclusions. Here, and anywhere else. What is also interesting to note is that Pixy does not state that his theory is just that…a theory, or provisional, or hypothetical, or tentative, or anything else. Pixy flat out insists that he is 100% correct. He has definitively solved some of the biggest questions in science (which, he insists, are not really that big after all):

- what is consciousness
- is consciousness computational
- can a computer be conscious
- are there currently computers that are conscious

That's the thing about Dennett and Hofstadter's work: They clear out all the nonsense that's been cluttering up the conversation. Before, those questions weren't even meaningful. Now they're not only meaningful, they're simple, direct factual questions.

What is also interesting to note is just how few of the skeptics here challenge these positions (while at exactly the same time…insisting that they do not share them… or not entirely… or something [ever heard of damning with faint praise?])…while at exactly exactly the same time, constantly criticizing those who do.

The point is that the "criticisms" are mostly incoherent nonsense. You will find that skeptics will attack incoherent nonsense even if they don't agree with the target of said nonsense.

Nobody is arguing whether Pixy’s definition is coherent or consistent within itself. It is.

Thanks.

It is also what everyone means when they speak of consciousness.

As to the points….Pixy blatantly challenges each of them:

- it’s a simple question

It is.

- there’s only one answer

How many answers do you expect?

- we not only know enough about this issue, we know enough about everything (Pixy has flat out claimed that we [whoever that is] know [unambiguously] how the universe works [tell me…who here agrees with this wildly optimistic conclusion? …this is, after all, the SMT forum…why don’t we take a simple poll]

We did take a simple poll. The results are at the top of the page.

- Pixy has insisted that his answer is not only right but conclusive

-10 points for reading comprehension. I specifically said that it has been conclusively shown that computers can achieve consciousness. Any argument to the contrary runs afoul of established laws of physics and mathematical theorems. I've explained this in detail, repeatedly.

The simple fact is….the agenda of Pixy et. al.is philosophical, not scientific.

Nope. My agenda, inasmuch as I have one at all, is simply to improve the signal/noise ratio.

They will take any steps available and necessary to argue and establish that there is nothing in any way unique or special about being human (Pixy has implied or stated this explicitly numerous times).

That's not an agenda. That's bleedin' obvious. Where have you been the last 150 years?

….which, if you begin with the equation:

Consciousness = information processing

It's not an equation.

…is quite accurate. Everything in the universe is information processing and therefore everything is essentially identical to everything else.

No.

If, on the other hand, you wish to differentiate varieties of said processing according to obvious metrics you will inevitably have to conclude (as have innumerable people in the cog sci community from Scott Huettel and Christof Koch to RocketDodger himself), based on virtually every available standard, that being human is indeed not just special but very special…both subjectively and objectively.

What is "special", and why do you cling to it so desperately?

Pixy has some well-thought-out answers to some very challenging questions.

Yes. But they are not my answers. It's my phrasing, but the answers I present are drawn from cognitive science.

Lots of very credible individuals do not agree with him. They are not idiots. The consensus seems to be in their favor.

Evidence?

 

[Belz...]

Made what up?

You mean you couldn't even be bothered to go back a few posts and see what you said ?

With that attitude, I'm surprised you gave Pixy a free pass when he cited Dennett as an expert on consciousness.

I'll take that as a retraction.

 

[Belz...]

That is because it is extremely difficult to define.

It's difficult to define in a way that satisfies you.

Pixy has offered a definition that does not work and is not used by anyone who actually studies brains.

How doesn't it work ?