On Consciousness

[Belz...]

There's no such thing as "red light" or "green light".

That's like saying there are no rabbits.

You want to stop at the photoreceptors, for example, but at that point all we're looking at is wavelengths of light and neural activity. So far no color.

Wavelength and neural activity IS colour.

So far, nobody has come up with any explanation of consciousness, or even a framework to understand it, within the "data processing" framework.

That's because you're expecting a different explanation, one that has something more than the current answers. Tell me, when is the universe supposed to care about your expectations ?

And your claim that nobody has come up with any explanation sure recalls your similar claim in that other thread.

 

[Fudbucker]

The problem with the notion that we can't explain consciousness within the framework of data processing is that consciousness is data processing.

And the problem with the notion that consciousness is special because it requires energy is that, well, duh.

Then anything that does data processing would have to be considered conscious. That's absurd.

Data processing is a necessary condition for consciousness, but not a sufficient one.

 

[Belz...]

Then anything that does data processing would have to be considered conscious. That's absurd.

Data processing is a necessary condition for consciousness, but not a sufficient one.

No one's saying that data processing is consciousness, but that consciousness is data processing. See the difference ? Your objection is like saying that the claim that dogs are animals is absurd because being an animal is not sufficient a condition for being a dog.

 

[Piggy]

I don't think that's true that no one has come up with a framework to understand consciousness within the data processing framework.

I'm suggesting that the idea of the internal subjective experience being above and beyond what machines can do is cultural, not scientific. I assume you are familiar with Dennett's "The Magic of Consciousness?" What's your refutation, Piggy?

As for energy consumed by consciousness, is there any evidence it's consumed by more than neurons doing there action potential things, which can be modeled as data processing elements in digital computers?

You think qualia are produced inside neurons?

Well, we agree that conscious machines should be possible in theory.

I haven't read that by Dennett. Does he make the same mistakes he made in "Consciousness Explained"?

We also both agree that the activity of brain tissue is responsible for consciousness.

No, consciousness is not "produced inside neurons". It's a distributed process, integrating activity across disparate brain real estate.

 

[Piggy]

This is of course nonsense. The brain is not producing colours, but registering them....

The baby will not see 'red' at the beginning....

This is ridiculous.

First, there are no colors in the world to register.

Go back to our thought experiment with the sober human, the dog, the person with tritanopia, and the guy on psilocybin. The same light ends up triggering 4 different colors. So what color is the light? Blue, green, yellow, or gray?

You tell me.

Also, of course the baby sees red the first time it looks at something which appears red to us.

Your arguments are totally absurd.

 

[Piggy]

The distribution of photoreceptor activity would be the first place where sufficient qualities could be found. The activity distribution of the respective downstream networks is another, although that rapidly becomes less prediction than observation, because that's where it's happening.


I think I've mentioned downstream processing like a zillion times here. You've never seemed that interested because at that point it's just neural activity finding patterns in other neural activity, not "red" and "green."


I don't think so. Consider the trichomatic vision paper I linked to earlier. They were working with adult monkeys. If a particular color's vision depended on existing infrastructure or even a critical period in development, it shouldn't have worked.

I'm beginning to suspect....

Let me just ask you something, maybe it will cut to the chase.

Do you agree that when you wake up from a dreamless sleep, your brain is doing something that it wasn't doing when you were asleep?

 

[Piggy]

Then anything that does data processing would have to be considered conscious. That's absurd.

Data processing is a necessary condition for consciousness, but not a sufficient one.

The more you question the informationists, the more you drill down to the bedrock of ridiculous.

 

[Belz...]

I haven't read that by Dennett. Does he make the same mistakes he made in "Consciousness Explained"?

I thought you trusted experts ?

First, there are no colors in the world to register.

You are using a phenomenally narrow definition of the word "colour".

The more you question the informationists, the more you drill down to the bedrock of ridiculous.

More labeling and back-patting from you.

 

[tsig]

There's no extra baggage, you simply have not answered the question.

Say you're looking at a stoplight. The light from the top bulb and the light from the bottom bulb make your retina do different things, and you have different neural activity in the optic nerve.

What are the qualities of that neural activity which would allow an observer to predict -- if they didn't already know it -- whether your resulting conscious experience would be of a red light above a green light, or the other way around?

Or for that matter, some completely different experience, or no conscious experience at all?

Same for the baby -- what about the neural activity would allow an observer to predict that the baby would have an experience of red, rather than some other experience, or no conscious experience as a result?

So far, you're still arguing something for nothing.

Just answer the question.

ETA: While you're at it, since you contend that the activity of photoreceptors in the retina is sufficient to produce a conscious experience of color, please explain how lesions in the visual cortex can cause blindness? If you were correct that retinal activity were sufficient to produce the experience, lesions "downstream" would not matter.

Piggy, you're like the person who asked how an electric light worked and was given an explanation from the generator to the switch to the heating of the filament only to exclaim "but what is Light!!??"

 

[tsig]

The more you question the informationists, the more you drill down to the bedrock of ridiculous.

The more you question someone with a weak argument the more insulting they get.

 

[Fudbucker]

No one's saying that data processing is consciousness, but that consciousness is data processing. See the difference ? Your objection is like saying that the claim that dogs are animals is absurd because being an animal is not sufficient a condition for being a dog.

Well, depends on how you use "is". A triangle IS a three-sided figure with 180 degrees (and vice versa). But also a dog IS a four-legged mammal, but not vice-versa.

Pixy will have to clarify.

 

[steenkh]

This is ridiculous.

First, there are no colors in the world to register.

Absurd nonsense. Are you denying that light comes in different wavelengths? Are you denying that we have three types of photoreceptors, corresponding in general to the three colours red, green, and blue?

Go back to our thought experiment with the sober human, the dog, the person with tritanopia, and the guy on psilocybin. The same light ends up triggering 4 different colors. So what color is the light? Blue, green, yellow, or gray?

The light stays the colour it has been all the same, determined by its wavelengths. The fact that some people and animals do not have the same number of, or corresponding photoreceptors, does not change the light (we will ignore the question of white balance here).

Everybody sees something corresponding to the colour of the light, and children learn to call the green light 'green', red light 'red', and so on. Even a colour blind person sees something, despite not having the same types of photoreceptors as other people, and he learns from others that the colour of leaves is 'green' even if he can actually not distinguish it from red.

Everybody build up data structures for the colours they see, and associate them with leaves, sky, fruits, or whatever, and they call these data structures by the associated names they have learned from other people.

Colours exist. What is your problem?

Also, of course the baby sees red the first time it looks at something which appears red to us.

Of course the baby's photoreceptors register the red colours right from the start! Who have claimed differently? But the baby may not yet associate what it registers with all the stuff that it is associated with later. The baby will just have less of an experience at start. Was I supposed to disagree with you here, or are disagreeing with me, or are you just upset that there is no special magic about 'red'?

Your arguments are totally absurd.

Pot, meet kettle!

 

[Belz...]

Of course the baby's photoreceptors register the red colours right from the start! Who have claimed differently? But the baby may not yet associate what it registers with all the stuff that it is associated with later. The baby will just have less of an experience at start.

Right. There are many things you experience as a young child that, when you experience them much later, have more depth and significance. You simply make more complex associations at that point.

 

[Mr. Scott]

The more you question someone with a weak argument the more insulting they get.

Yea, I've been wondering why Piggy is getting meaner and meaner.

 

[Piggy]

Absurd nonsense. Are you denying that light comes in different wavelengths? Are you denying that we have three types of photoreceptors, corresponding in general to the three colours red, green, and blue?

Both of those statements are correct, but you are relating them in incorrect ways.

The photoreceptors discriminate among the wavelengths.

Also, the resulting neural activity eventually results (some of the time, not all of the time) in the production of those colors by the brain.

But this in no way implies that the behavior of the brain is somehow a property of light.

Do you deny that you will feel pain if I jab you with a needle?

Of course not.

Does this mean that pain is a property of needles?

Of course not.

 

[Piggy]

The light stays the colour it has been all the same, determined by its wavelengths.

What?

This makes no sense.

You're not answering my question.

We have the same wavelength of light causing 4 different color responses in 4 different brains.

You believe that color is a property of light.

So just answer the question and tell me if the light is blue, yellow, green, or gray.

 

[Piggy]

Yea, I've been wondering why Piggy is getting meaner and meaner.

It's just hard questioning, Mr. Scott.

When the dodging stops, I'll ease up.

 

[Mr. Scott]

The more you question the informationists, the more you drill down to the bedrock of ridiculous.

That's hard questioning??

 

[Piggy]

That's hard questioning??

No, that was an aside.

Do you not agree that PixyMisa's statement is ridiculous?

And it's true that the more you tease out the beliefs of the informationists, the more absurd they get.

Perhaps that's why they're not addressing the questions I'm posing to them.

 

[tsig]

No, I mean "red" which you experience when a stoplight changes and you stop your car.

Don't bail out on me here.

Let's keep going.

If you drive a car, and you know when to stop and when to go, then you experience both red and green, and these are different experiences for you.

So let's go back to the case in point.

So far, we have a neural response from the eye based on wavelength, but no red yet, but neural activity.

Let's keep going and see if and when we get to red.

Or do you want to bail out now?

This is ridiculous.

First, there are no colors in the world to register.

Go back to our thought experiment with the sober human, the dog, the person with tritanopia, and the guy on psilocybin. The same light ends up triggering 4 different colors. So what color is the light? Blue, green, yellow, or gray?

You tell me.

Also, of course the baby sees red the first time it looks at something which appears red to us.

Your arguments are totally absurd.

The more you question the informationists, the more you drill down to the bedrock of ridiculous.

It's just hard questioning, Mr. Scott.

When the dodging stops, I'll ease up.

Questions usually have question marks.