On Consciousness

[Piggy]

Pathetic dodge. You know exactly what was meant. Red light being that consisting of the wavelengths commonly agreed upon and labelled as "red" by humans. If you dont like the term data, change it to "activity" or "neural activity".

Why are the elements 4, 5 and 6 which reference what is typically referred to as qualia necessary at all?

And, incidentally as you have mentioned a few times, there is no such thing as software only or pure programming without hardware. All software runs on something physical, and is completely physical in nature.

In this case, we can't be fast and loose with our terms. For most discussions, speaking of "red light" is fine. Here, it is not.

And I know that all software runs on hardware. The claim by the informationalilsts is that there need be no other hardware other than the bare minimum needed to run the logic. That's like saying you can have a display with no monitor, the "logic" or "data" or "information" will take care of the display by itself.

My contention is merely that conscious awareness is not purely programmable on a general purpose computer. In fact, no real-world behavior is. If the outcome is real-world behavior, whether that's playing music, printing numbers, or painting cars -- it's always a software/hardware solution which requires more hardware than just what's needed to run the logic.

There's no reason to make a case of special pleading for this particular bodily function.

 

[Belz...]

Well gents, I think this is as stark a denial of reality as we're likely to get. It's barely one step above "I know you are but what am I," making this a pretty good stopping point.

I still don't know what Piggy is looking for. I'm quite content with knowing with a reasonable level of certainty how the brain functions and possibly generates consciousness. I don't need to find out "why" red is red.

Really, only the peanut gallery matters, because debate participants are almost always in "have to win" mode, not "let us together drill down and find the truth" mode.

There are people actually reading this thread besides us ? And I'm not even wearing a tie !

 

[Belz...]

So you can't answer any of it.

Imaginary point for Piggy, real point for Mr Scott.

If I were you, I would probably also exit the conversation and stick to talking with fellow travelers. Can't blame you one bit.

You really do have to love the human tendency to declare victory whenever someone exits the conversation for stated reasons other than "you win."

 

[Belz...]

No, it has been asserted, but never explained. It can't' be explained, because it's clearly wrong.

That is such a beautiful circular argument.

And I know that all software runs on hardware. The claim by the informationalilsts is that there need be no other hardware other than the bare minimum needed to run the logic.

Who said that we don't need hardware ?

 

[steenkh]

And I know that all software runs on hardware. The claim by the informationalilsts is that there need be no other hardware other than the bare minimum needed to run the logic. That's like saying you can have a display with no monitor, the "logic" or "data" or "information" will take care of the display by itself.

That is a strawman. Please quote where anybody has said this if you want to dispel the accusation.

All computers work with hardware, particularly with input/output systems, but special math processors are also known.

Any system that is trying to emulate the brain will need corresponding hardware for the sensory input and the motor output. Not necessarily 'wet' hardware, but something that can provide the proper input and output.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

So you can't answer any of it.

You say that the phenomenology which is our undeniable everyday experience just is the neurology, and requires no explanation why, and yet we cannot observe our phenomenology and tell what the brain activity is -- we have to go to extreme measures -- and we can't observe the brain activity and predict what the phenomenology is unless we're of the same species with the same brain and already know it.

Experiments on people with blindsight and emotional blindness demonstrate clearly that phenomenology isn't a given where "information processing" is present, but is a specialized process in the brain, yet you dismiss that.

Actual neurobiologists specializing in consciousness all agree that we have no theory, or even the basis of a theory, to explain consciousness (beyond knowing that it's the result of brain activity, and involves 3 signature processes: in the brain stem, in deep brain waves, and synchronized oscillations across the brain in higher level cortex) and yet you claim that you do have a theory. You should notify the editors of standard graduate-level texts such as "The Cognitive Neurosciences" and the heads of departments and professors who purchase those texts and inform them that they have no idea what they're doing.

You not only can't answer the question of why a given wavelength of light results in our seeing a particular color, or any color at all, but you don't even seem to understand enough to comprehend the question, continually misinterpreting it as a philosophical question along the lines of "How do I know you see red?"

If I were you, I would probably also exit the conversation and stick to talking with fellow travelers. Can't blame you one bit.

no u

I still don't know what Piggy is looking for. I'm quite content with knowing with a reasonable level of certainty how the brain functions and possibly generates consciousness. I don't need to find out "why" red is red.

His pet theory is that the brain waves themselves cause consciousness. Since that's kind of like the idea that a car moves because the engine goes "vroom," he doesn't like saying it outright. He tried doing so earlier in the thread. It didn't work out well for him, although he'd probably say his opponents were unable to make any credible arguments against it and were swooned, swooned I say, by the force of his animal magnetism. The more recent mentions of it have been much more carefully worded.

Point is, having a scientific theory that's too embarrassing to say out loud doesn't leave you with a lot of options.

Among the better ones is elimination: if you can disprove or discredit every alternative hypothesis, yours wins by default. That's been his primary motivation behind all this disagreeableness: he's not looking for the truth, but to simply be an obstinate git until everyone else gives up.

 

[Belz...]

His pet theory is that the brain waves themselves cause consciousness.

How does that work ?

Point is, having a scientific theory that's too embarrassing to say out loud doesn't leave you with a lot of options.

Well it sure leave one with namecalling.

That's been his primary motivation behind all this disagreeableness: he's not looking for the truth, but to simply be an obstinate git until everyone else gives up.

At which point he declares victory. So what you're saying is that instead of looking for the truth he's looking for confirmation ?

 

[Mr. Scott]

If you do this with all the brain tissue, and you replicate the behavior exactly, all the behavior with no bias toward eliminating what anybody guesses is "junk" or "noise", then you have a working model. Which is trivial.

Maybe you answered my request for clarification and I missed it. Sorry to have to repeat myself.

You are conceding that a duplicate of the brain made of robot neurons that behave exactly like real neurons would indeed be conscious? Experience qualia?

 

[Prometheus]

Maybe you answered my request for clarification and I missed it. Sorry to have to repeat myself.

You are conceding that a duplicate of the brain made of robot neurons that behave exactly like real neurons would indeed be conscious? Experience qualia?

Yes, Piggy did say outright that this is correct recently (within the last page), but honestly, my interpretation of his posts has been that this "concession" has been a feature of his position all along. I've been mostly lurking here because it's been a long time since I studied this stuff, and I never studied it in any great depth. That said, however, the view from the peanut gallery really is that there's quite a lot of straw being tossed about by both sides in this thread.

 

[PixyMisa]

Yes, Piggy did say outright that this is correct recently (within the last page), but honestly, my interpretation of his posts has been that this "concession" has been a feature of his position all along. I've been mostly lurking here because it's been a long time since I studied this stuff, and I never studied it in any great depth. That said, however, the view from the peanut gallery really is that there's quite a lot of straw being tossed about by both sides in this thread.

Mmno. Sorry. One side makes sense, the other side is constructed entirely of logical fallacies.

 

[steenkh]

Yes, Piggy did say outright that this is correct recently (within the last page), but honestly, my interpretation of his posts has been that this "concession" has been a feature of his position all along.

Well, yes, and no. He definitely has been saying it, or something like it, more than once. To me, that would end the discussion in agreement. I regard computer consciousness that emulates the brain precisely a certainty, and one that does not is only a possibility. Without either, I agree with Piggy that we should study the only thing that we knows has consciousness, and that is a working brain.

However, almost immediately after conceding that machine consciousness is possible, Piggy will make some statement that it is actually impossible for a computer to be conscious, because consciousness can only exist in wet hardware, or because there is a certain je-ne-sait-quois that is impossible to achieve in a computer, and this raises everybody's hackles again!

 

[Beelzebuddy]

How does that work ?

Well, imagine you knew nothing about how cars worked. You know they move, they go vroom when they do it, and that's about all. It wouldn't be entirely unreasonable to believe the vroom makes the car go.

Fast forward through decades of autoscience, and we can get the hood open and start rooting around. There's things here. Pipes and crap. They shoulda sent a plumber. Most autoscientists now figure these tubes and whatnot, that's what makes it go, and the vroom is just noise. Except for a handful of vroomites who insist that all this mechanical stuff is only here to produce the correct vroom, that it's necessary but not sufficient because the car still cannot go without the vroom.

...Or did you mean "how do brainwaves produce consciousness?" Damned if I know. Piggy doesn't know either. That's an essential element of his argument: if we had any idea at all how it might work, we could test it. But all tests anyone's come up with so far (like not getting your brains scrambled by weak magnetic fields) have returned negative. So his best option is to have the model remain mysterious and unknowable, and just stir up enough mud around every other model that no one questions his holograms and qualia.

Yes, Piggy did say outright that this is correct recently (within the last page)

Actually, no he didn't. He answered a similar-sounding question which wasn't asked, and he didn't even answer it with "yes." He left himself multiple ways of backing out of the statement, from magic beaning something aside from neurons that's vital to consciousness (see above re: brainwaves), to claiming that a working model tornado inna box yadda yadda can't be conscious.

That said, however, the view from the peanut gallery really is that there's quite a lot of straw being tossed about by both sides in this thread.

Good! That's a much healthier viewpoint than what you had when I rejoined the conversation - you were practically Piggy's disciple. Question everything! Let no one speak from authority. Listen, and judge for yourself.

 

[Belz...]

Well, imagine you knew nothing about how cars worked. You know they move, they go vroom when they do it, and that's about all. It wouldn't be entirely unreasonable to believe the vroom makes the car go.

Maybe not entirely but damn near.

...Or did you mean "how do brainwaves produce consciousness?"

Yeah, that's what I meant.

 

[AlBell]

...

Good! That's a much healthier viewpoint than what you had when I rejoined the conversation - you were practically Piggy's disciple. Question everything! Let no one speak from authority. Listen, and judge for yourself.

Speaking of disciples. Some of us are still waiting for someone to explain why SRIP only sometimes results in consciousness.

 

[PixyMisa]

Speaking of disciples. Some of us are still waiting for someone to explain why SRIP only sometimes results in consciousness.

You'll be waiting a long time for that. Consciousness is self-referential information processing.

 

[AlBell]

You'll be waiting a long time for that. Consciousness is self-referential information processing.

How did you demonstrate (or even convince yourself) that SRIP is necessary and sufficient?

Citing 'I Am A Strange Loop' and 'GEB' is not an answer.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Well, yes, and no. He definitely has been saying it, or something like it, more than once. To me, that would end the discussion in agreement. I regard computer consciousness that emulates the brain precisely a certainty, and one that does not is only a possibility. Without either, I agree with Piggy that we should study the only thing that we knows has consciousness, and that is a working brain.

However, almost immediately after conceding that machine consciousness is possible, Piggy will make some statement that it is actually impossible for a computer to be conscious, because consciousness can only exist in wet hardware, or because there is a certain je-ne-sait-quois that is impossible to achieve in a computer, and this raises everybody's hackles again!

I really want Piggy to explicitly acknowledge that he believes a brain made of robot neurons would be conscious, just to make sure I heard him right.

I suspect he's not confirming this because he knows it's mate on one if he makes that move. I'm giving him a chance to take back the move. I see his hand still on the piece. However, to take back the move he'd need to explain the reason really well, or come up with a novel assertion.

I await his response.

 

[Fudbucker]

Well, imagine you knew nothing about how cars worked. You know they move, they go vroom when they do it, and that's about all. It wouldn't be entirely unreasonable to believe the vroom makes the car go.

Fast forward through decades of autoscience, and we can get the hood open and start rooting around. There's things here. Pipes and crap. They shoulda sent a plumber. Most autoscientists now figure these tubes and whatnot, that's what makes it go, and the vroom is just noise. Except for a handful of vroomites who insist that all this mechanical stuff is only here to produce the correct vroom, that it's necessary but not sufficient because the car still cannot go without the vroom.

...Or did you mean "how do brainwaves produce consciousness?" Damned if I know. Piggy doesn't know either. That's an essential element of his argument: if we had any idea at all how it might work, we could test it. But all tests anyone's come up with so far (like not getting your brains scrambled by weak magnetic fields) have returned negative. So his best option is to have the model remain mysterious and unknowable, and just stir up enough mud around every other model that no one questions his holograms and qualia.


Actually, no he didn't. He answered a similar-sounding question which wasn't asked, and he didn't even answer it with "yes." He left himself multiple ways of backing out of the statement, from magic beaning something aside from neurons that's vital to consciousness (see above re: brainwaves), to claiming that a working model tornado inna box yadda yadda can't be conscious.


Good! That's a much healthier viewpoint than what you had when I rejoined the conversation - you were practically Piggy's disciple. Question everything! Let no one speak from authority. Listen, and judge for yourself.

When I asked Piggy if we had a mechanical brain that was functionally equivalent to an organic brain, his answer was clear: It would be conscious.

 

[Fudbucker]

You'll be waiting a long time for that. Consciousness is self-referential information processing.

You're equivocating yet again. Your post, with the heavy emphasis on IS, sounds like a definitional claim.

There's agreement that concsciousness may be a kind of SRIP. Or that SRIP is a necessary condition for consciousness. But if you're claiming all instances of SRIP are instances of consciousness (sufficiency), you'll be out on a very long limb.

 

[Fudbucker]

I really want Piggy to explicitly acknowledge that he believes a brain made of robot neurons would be conscious, just to make sure I heard him right.

I suspect he's not confirming this because he knows it's mate on one if he makes that move. I'm giving him a chance to take back the move. I see his hand still on the piece. However, to take back the move he'd need to explain the reason really well, or come up with a novel assertion.

I await his response.

He did confirm it.

Post 4324