On Consciousness

[Verklagekasper]

Is it really the claim that consciousness can be created algorithmically? Neural computer systems have an algorithm that make them neural, but it does not make them do what they are supposed to do - that can only happen through teaching, which is non-algorithmic.

Persons in coma have malfunctions that prevent them from becoming conscious. That would be akin to a neural computer system that could function but where some cells are knocked out.

Consciousness isn't more likely to emerge from neural computers than from ordinary computers, because neural computer systems can be simulated precisely by ordinary computers. They're all Turing machines based on the same principles of algorithmic processing.

 

[Verklagekasper]

You seem to object to the "dominant" (out of a field one) theory about consciousness, but you have no suggestions what would be needed to make a better theory?

I have not. Considering that the mind-body problem has been debated since ancient times without a solution, I doubt that there will ever be a theory that nails it. Which doesn't make the "the brain is a computer" view any more useful as it lacks plausibility.

 

[steenkh]

Consciousness isn't more likely to emerge from neural computers than from ordinary computers, because neural computer systems can be simulated precisely by ordinary computers. They're all Turing machines based on the same principles of algorithmic processing.

Neural computer systems are ordinary computers. But there is no program telling them what to do. Their education tells them.

The actual behaviour of the program is determined by the variables, but nobody knows exactly which variables and what values they need to do the job properly, and sometimes the program fails to do the job properly.

Of course, you can dump the contents of all variables after they have been taught, and incorporating them into a fixed program that can then do the job without being taught. But in that case you are using the term "algorithmic" in the widest sense, because nobody understands the "algorithm".

I am not claiming that brains work like neural computer systems, but I am claiming that neural computer systems show characteristics that we can recognise in brains, such as being non-algorithmic.

A real brain is much more than its neurons, and today it is recognised that cell specialisation, and the flow of blood and hormones are also elements that need to be taken into account.

 

[steenkh]

I have not. Considering that the mind-body problem has been debated since ancient times without a solution, I doubt that there will ever be a theory that nails it. Which doesn't make the "the brain is a computer" view any more useful as it lacks plausibility.

So your position boils down to an argument from incredulity?

I will gladly contemplate any other theory that explains the brain with the same degree of plausibility. But it will have to be formulated first. So far, only theories that imply new physics (or 'magic') have been proposed, and these fall far short of the mark as long as the only objections against the dominant theory are just vague gut feelings.

 

[Verklagekasper]

Neural computer systems are ordinary computers. But there is no program telling them what to do. Their education tells them.

AI research has been very creative in establishing buzz words that made people believe that there was something particularly human about its inventions. "Learning", "education", etc.. Again, they are just Turing Machines like any other computer.

I am not claiming that brains work like neural computer systems, but I am claiming that neural computer systems show characteristics that we can recognise in brains, such as being non-algorithmic.

Which doesn't imply a lot more than the human characteristics of Super Mario.

 

[Dancing David]

lol That will be the day.



Well I cant really put my finger on it. As a species we ve had (or maybe in some cases still having) enough problems to recognize consciousness in animals. Just mentioning Des Cartes for the sake of conversation; he argued that only humans are conscious.

It took us more than two centuries by then to actively recognize and research animal consciousness. (I am not referring to the Problem of Other Minds, which I believe is part of Philosophical Skepticism).
Wittgenstein wrote: "If the lion could speak, we could not understand it." I am only curious if and how could we even realize or perceive (and of course how long would that take us) that there is a communicative intention (which of course presupposes that quarks are conscious).

To be honest I find it highly unlikely. Not because I reject the notion of a conscious quark (a conscious quark would not have already communicated with us ever since the double-split experiment, no?), but because the same definitions collapse , start to have no meaning and lead us to quantum mysticism.

As part of the physical world, are we not made of quarks? Could it be that maybe we ourselves are the manifestation of quark consciousness? [It sounds New-Agey, but not my intention.At all. ]

Finally, this quark consciousness, does it have free will?

Is it possible that we just "want" to shift the problem of consciousness to the quantum world and so we interpret everything we see around us through the confirmation bias of the already-induced-in-us religious (pantheistic, mystic) ideas? Is the quantum consciousness free will more free or even so, by human consciousness standards?


(to be quite frank with you, I have not yet read the entire thread here but I am about to finish reading it one of these days. If this has already been answered, then please ignore it. Thank you)

Welcome!
Some people shift it to QM, because they are ignorant.

Consciousness is a set of defined behaviors.

 

[Dancing David]

I think the argument for quantum consciousness has to do with quarks' indeterminacy. We can't measure exactly what state they are in, so they determine their own state, therefore must have free will and be conscious. I think that's how the argument goes.

Quarks are even better than that, they are never 'naked', in that they can't be seen singly. They have to be part of a trio or pair.

And even better they have asymptotic freedom, if they are close to their partners they are quite free to move about, the farther they are from their partners, the less freedom they have.

 

[Dancing David]

Explain to a blind person what it is like to see.

Give non answers and false analogies to specific questions.

 

[Dancing David]

Considering that the mind-body problem has been debated since ancient times without a solution,

Care to show a mind without a body, the buddha nailed it down long ago,. There is a body, there are thoughts, perceptions, emotions and habits.

Show me the mind absent the body, then you can pretend there is a mind-body problem.

 

[Dancing David]

Because, if you had thought about it, the thought might have helped you realize that your claim is wrong. Consciousness is based on impressions that cannot be reduced to information, facts, data. You cannot really explain what it feels like to see to someone who is not familiar with the concept in the first place. He wouldn't grasp what it really feels like.

So where does this consciousness exist outside of neurons interacting with each other?

You have yet to show that consciousness is not the product of neurons interacting. Show me consciousness absent a brain.

Sorry Poor Mary Raised in the Black and White Room, how naive.

I wonder how I can understand things I have never experienced, through reading, like deep sea diving?

 

[PixyMisa]

Because, if you had thought about it, the thought might have helped you realize that your claim is wrong.

I have thought about it, and no.

Consciousness is based on impressions that cannot be reduced to information, facts, data.

Evidence?

You cannot really explain what it feels like to see to someone who is not familiar with the concept in the first place. He wouldn't grasp what it really feels like.

Please explain why you think this is relevant.

 

[PixyMisa]

To explain subjective phenomena, a theory would be required that isn't logically compatible with the absence of them. While I'm not sure that science as a whole will never achieve that, I am certain that reductive analyses of the brain won't lead anywhere, because reductionism asserts that the whole is the sum of its parts and just that.

A common misunderstanding. Reductionism asserts that the whole is the sum of its parts and their interactions. This is, of course, true.

Reductionist theories are thus compatible with the absence of subjective phenomena. Therefore, they cannot explain them.

Non-sequitur.

 

[PixyMisa]

As part of the physical world, are we not made of quarks?

And leptons.

Could it be that maybe we ourselves are the manifestation of quark consciousness?

No. Quarks (and other fundamental particles) are not conscious. It's impossible.

Subatomic particles have very specific sets of properties (mass, charge, spin etc). All subatomic particles of a given kind are identical. While a neutron can decay, neutrons are indistinguishable from one another and there is no way, even in principle, to tell when a given neutron might decay; for any neutron the probability in any given interval is exactly the same.

Consciousness requires a complex, changing internal state. Fundamental particles don't have any internal state - by definition.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Heavier-than-air flight is patently impossible. Not only are the mechanics of avian flight nearly a complete unknown, a very simple application of the Square-cube law provides ample demonstration that no material on earth can possibly provide the tensile strength required for wings to hold a man loft, much less whatever contraption he is using to beat them. This is an obviously insurmountable problem one can appreciate by observing any of the hundreds of attempts to soar with the birds that have been made to date. Anything else you may hear, especially "scientific" terminology like lift, drag and so on, exists only to muddy the waters and fool the inexperienced observer into believing that our current tricks of gliders and ballistic trajectories and so on compose anything resembling true flight.

 

[steenkh]

AI research has been very creative in establishing buzz words that made people believe that there was something particularly human about its inventions. "Learning", "education", etc.. Again, they are just Turing Machines like any other computer.

And so are we. What is your point?

Which doesn't imply a lot more than the human characteristics of Super Mario.

Argument from incredulity again.

 

[Mr. Scott]

AI research has been very creative in establishing buzz words that made people believe that there was something particularly human about its inventions. "Learning", "education", etc.. Again, they are just Turing Machines like any other computer.

Which doesn't imply a lot more than the human characteristics of Super Mario.

Somehow, we are expected to take that as a given that a Turning Machine cannot be conscious.

Daniel Dennett brings up Turing machines in his lecture on free will. It's lengthy, but fascinating. I've watched it about 3 times.

Daniel Dennett - Free Will Determinism and Evolution


Dennett also has this related lecture "The Magic of Consciousness" which argues that the subjective experience is an illusion. Also very worthwhile.


Also, as pointed out, you seem to be suggesting in other posts that since we haven't yet solved the problem of building a conscious machine, and the solution's been longer coming than some predicted, that there is no solution (non-sequitur fallacy). Computers are now doing many things that were predicted to be impossible -- sometimes by simulating neural networks. It's a reasonable extrapolation that a neural network simulated in a Turing Machine of sufficient size and speed could be conscious.

 

[Belz...]

"Flawed theory" doesn't quite put it. The claim that a conscious mind could be created algorithmically is an idea which - measured by the level of its substantiation and the lack of success in implementing it - is comparable with the alchemist idea of creating gold from common metals.

What makes biological brains so special, then ?

 

[Belz...]

Because science doesn't explain subjective experience. The taste of sugar, the color red, pain.

Er... yes it does. What you're talking about is the "extra stuff" that people keep talking about (qualia) and that reeks of dualism.

Consciousness is based on impressions that cannot be reduced to information, facts, data.

Personal opinion. This claim is not supported by the facts.

 

[Belz...]

I have not. Considering that the mind-body problem has been debated since ancient times without a solution, I doubt that there will ever be a theory that nails it. Which doesn't make the "the brain is a computer" view any more useful as it lacks plausibility.

The mind-body problem is made up. That's why no solutions are forthcoming. When you start seeing this issue as a body issue entirely, the answers are easy to find.

 

[Dancing David]

Heavier-than-air flight is patently impossible. Not only are the mechanics of avian flight nearly a complete unknown, a very simple application of the Square-cube law provides ample demonstration that no material on earth can possibly provide the tensile strength required for wings to hold a man loft, much less whatever contraption he is using to beat them. This is an obviously insurmountable problem one can appreciate by observing any of the hundreds of attempts to soar with the birds that have been made to date. Anything else you may hear, especially "scientific" terminology like lift, drag and so on, exists only to muddy the waters and fool the inexperienced observer into believing that our current tricks of gliders and ballistic trajectories and so on compose anything resembling true flight.

And this is in reference to?