Resolution of Transporter Problem

[rocketdodger]

Well, you become aware of it when attention is directed to it. However, I'm not really asking about attention here.

lol

You ask where awareness comes from. Then you answer your own question -- "you become aware of it when attention is directed to it." Then you discount your own answer.

You are a dualist Nick.

You are a dualist because no matter how well a theory or model or observations explain the behaviors of consciousness you will always look deeper. You will always look for some magical ("qualitatively different") property of material that gives rise to consciousness, such that you can look at a system and point to it clearly and say "aha, see, there it is! There is consciousness!."

You are a dualist because you already know where consciousness comes from -- you just said it in the above statement -- and you refuse to accept the simplicity of the answer.

 

[Nick227]

I told you. I have told you over and over.

Reasoning.

You're saying the visual sensation of there being a chair arises because of reasoning? Care to go into more detail? Exactly how does reasoning create a visible visual representation?

I'm not asking how the brain filters incoming data and seeks patterns, cross-referencing with existing knowledge, etc etc. I'm asking how come it's visible.

Yep. That is how you answered last time.

And this is why you will never understand the things pixy and I understand.

Until you can tell someone the difference between a chair you notice in a stadium and all the chairs you don't notice, you won't be able to understand how consciousness can arise in a material system.

I think this is complete BS but I'm very happy if you can explain to me why the above is correct.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

lol

You ask where awareness comes from. Then you answer your own question -- "you become aware of it when attention is directed to it." Then you discount your own answer.

You are a dualist Nick.

You are a dualist because no matter how well a theory or model or observations explain the behaviors of consciousness you will always look deeper.

I look deeper, yes. If this means to your brain that I'm a dualist then, well, I'm fine with that. Whatever.

I'm well aware of Dennett's stance and the Strong AI theory, but they are just the bare bones of theoretical modelling. This is all. If you're happy with that then I'm glad you're not representative of researchers worldwide. We wouldn't have developed the wheel yet if you were the blueprint.

You will always look for some magical ("qualitatively different") property of material that gives rise to consciousness, such that you can look at a system and point to it clearly and say "aha, see, there it is! There is consciousness!."

And so will every other intelligent researcher.

My original question was this...there are two concurrent data streams, one from one eye (or ear), one from the other. One is conscious and the other not. How do you replicate this in AI?

Several pages later and neither of you can tell me how you would create a computer that is conscious of some of its processing yet unconscious of other bits. You can blather on about an assortment of tangential issues; you can demand that every word be comprehensively defined before you can tackle the question; you can defer to Mr Wolfe like he the Archangel Gabriel - but neither of you can answer the question.

You are a dualist because you already know where consciousness comes from -- you just said it in the above statement -- and you refuse to accept the simplicity of the answer.

You sound like some deluded new age guru, RD.

Nick

 

[rocketdodger]

You're saying the visual sensation of there being a chair arises because of reasoning? Care to go into more detail? Exactly how does reasoning create a visible visual representation?

Reasoning doesn't "create a visible visual representation." Reasoning is the "visible visual representation."

You have a pattern of neural firing on your retina. Your brain reasons about that pattern. There doesn't need to be anything else.

A neural network is an implicit reasoning machine. Your brain takes facts gathered by your retina -- such as photons hitting a receptor at a given location -- and infers new facts using its neural network(s). Facts like patterns and colors are inferred. Then meta-patterns and meta-colors. Eventually higher level facts such as "that thing is a tree" are inferred. Then "that tree resembles the tree I saw yesterday." You can't control it. You can't turn it on or off. It is automatic -- that is the way neurons work.

You can extend the chain as long as you wish. Thats what human consciousness is -- an endless chain of reasoning taking place in the neural network(s) of our brains. You have visual awareness of something if and only if your brain is somehow reasoning about it. Otherwise, it is just another pattern on your retina that is being ignored at a very low level.

Hence the stadium question (that you think is B.S.) You are aware of a specific chair because your brain decided to stop ignoring it and begin reasoning about it. You are still not aware of all the other thousands of chairs because your brain is not reasoning about them.

I'm not asking how the brain filters incoming data and seeks patterns, cross-referencing with existing knowledge, etc etc. I'm asking how come it's visible.

Uh, why do you keep assuming those are different?

Can you define "visible?" Because if I had to define "visible" I would say something like "data that my brain filters, seeks patterns in, cross-references with existing knowledge, etc etc."

Do you have a better definition?

 

[rocketdodger]

And so will every other intelligent researcher.

Can you name one?

My original question was this...there are two concurrent data streams, one from one eye (or ear), one from the other. One is conscious and the other not. How do you replicate this in AI?

We told you.

Several pages later and neither of you can tell me how you would create a computer that is conscious of some of its processing yet unconscious of other bits.

Wrong.

You can blather on about an assortment of tangential issues; you can demand that every word be comprehensively defined before you can tackle the question;

That is what dualists always say -- 'why should a vague ambiguous term be well-defined?'

You sound like some deluded new age guru, RD.

If you start off with the assumption that material can't give rise to consciousness, then of course anyone who has an explanation to the contrary will appear delusional.

 

[Z]

Thanks, RD, for clarifying his duality. I thought I was going crazy for a bit there... just before I chose to ignore Nick, I swore everything he posted was from a dualist standpoint, while he tried to claim he was the ONLY TRUE MATERIALIST.

Now that you've clarified his stance for me, I feel better.

He's seeking the qualia - the 'thing which is doing the seeing' - and choosing to ignore the brain. Which was blatantly obvious when he pointed out that he thought consciousness was more environmental than physical... I mean, how in the world does a materialist come to such a silly conclusion?

Oh well.

 

[PixyMisa]

Reasoning doesn't "create a visible visual representation." Reasoning is the "visible visual representation."

What the heck is a "visible visual representation" anyway?

Is this a good point to tell Nick about the invisible gorilla?

 

[rocketdodger]

What the heck is a "visible visual representation" anyway?

Is this a good point to tell Nick about the invisible gorilla?

No, don't ever tell him about change blindness.

He will think it makes things more complicated...

 

[PixyMisa]

No it doesn't.

That is how everyone else uses the word, Nick.

Wikipedia:

Consciousness is a type of mental state, a way of perceiving, particularly the perception of a relationship between self and other. It has been described as a point of view, an I, or what Thomas Nagel called the existence of "something that it is like" to be something.

You need to distinguish conscious awareness, from self-conscious awareness. They are not the same.

You can have unconscious awareness. You can have conscious awareness. You cannot have self-conscious awareness. The term is meaningless.

I can assure you that if your personal theory of consciousness requires a sense of self in order for consciousness to even exist then it's going nowhere but the great scrapheap.

On the contrary. The critical component to consciousness is self-reference; you cannot have self-reference without self.

Read Hofstadter. Listen to the lecture series. Learn the basics. Learn how the terms are defined. For that matter, learn that terms are defined. Until then, nothing will make sense to you, and nothing you say will make sense to anyone else.

 

[Nick227]

Reasoning doesn't "create a visible visual representation." Reasoning is the "visible visual representation."

You have a pattern of neural firing on your retina. Your brain reasons about that pattern. There doesn't need to be anything else.

A neural network is an implicit reasoning machine. Your brain takes facts gathered by your retina -- such as photons hitting a receptor at a given location -- and infers new facts using its neural network(s). Facts like patterns and colors are inferred. Then meta-patterns and meta-colors. Eventually higher level facts such as "that thing is a tree" are inferred. Then "that tree resembles the tree I saw yesterday." You can't control it. You can't turn it on or off. It is automatic -- that is the way neurons work.

You can extend the chain as long as you wish. Thats what human consciousness is -- an endless chain of reasoning taking place in the neural network(s) of our brains. You have visual awareness of something if and only if your brain is somehow reasoning about it. Otherwise, it is just another pattern on your retina that is being ignored at a very low level.

Hence the stadium question (that you think is B.S.) You are aware of a specific chair because your brain decided to stop ignoring it and begin reasoning about it. You are still not aware of all the other thousands of chairs because your brain is not reasoning about them.



Uh, why do you keep assuming those are different?

Can you define "visible?" Because if I had to define "visible" I would say something like "data that my brain filters, seeks patterns in, cross-references with existing knowledge, etc etc."

Do you have a better definition?

Something I can see.

This is the whole thing here, RD. You are not explaining the how of vision itself. I'm not asking you how the brain filters and constructs information - any fool can follow that. It's old hat. I'm asking you about vision itself, as a phenomenom.

The human brain can process images unconsciously. This is known, for example the dorsal stream is unconscious. So how, in material terms, does conscious "seeing" occur?

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Can you name one?

Susan Blackmore regularly challenges all ideas including her own.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

On the contrary. The critical component to consciousness is self-reference; you cannot have self-reference without self.

Well, I would dispute that, and plenty of meditators would back me up, I'll vouch. Self comes in later. Non-dualism is a priori and self comes in, mostly with post hoc thinking. It's clear for me.

Self just means there are feedback loops. To me it's nonsense to say that self (or self-reference) is necessary for consciousness. For me the statement is laughable. Self is an aspect of consciousness. This to me is a true materialist stance.

Of course if you believe that self is innate to consciousness you will likely not get in the teletransporter, depending on how you read "innate."

Read Hofstadter. Listen to the lecture series. Learn the basics. Learn how the terms are defined. For that matter, learn that terms are defined. Until then, nothing will make sense to you, and nothing you say will make sense to anyone else.

Well, if all this reading has left you believing that self is innate to consciousness then I can't say it turns me on so much. I'm still waiting for this list of researchers you have that think consciousness is well understood.

You take a dogmatic position, Pixy, believing the mind is what the brain does. But remember this is dogma. It is belief. I can and do believe the same. I am also aware that beliefs are not such a big deal.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

No, don't ever tell him about change blindness.

He will think it makes things more complicated...

Change blindness has nothing to do with it, RD. You guys are so excited about a little processing you can't get it what the big questions underneath this are. You can take a materialist stance. Any idiot can do that. But there isn't to my knowledge a materialist on this planet who can explain conscious vision at a material level. They can just take the position that it's innate to processing, which they can't empirically prove. It may be true. I personally figure it is. But the point is it's unproven. We don't know.

Bernard Baars figures it needs another 100 years to get close enough in to make meaningful pronouncements about the true nature of consciousness. I like his honesty. I miss yours.

Nick

 

[PixyMisa]

Something I can see.

"Circular" is better when it comes to, say, triangular wheels. Not so much for definitions.

This is the whole thing here, RD. You are not explaining the how of vision itself. I'm not asking you how the brain filters and constructs information - any fool can follow that. It's old hat. I'm asking you about vision itself, as a phenomenom.

That's just it, Nick. That's all there is. There is no "phenomenon" of vision, just data processing.

The human brain can process images unconsciously.

Sure.

This is known, for example the dorsal stream is unconscious. So how, in material terms, does conscious "seeing" occur?

Reference and self-reference.

 

[PixyMisa]

Well, I would dispute that, and plenty of meditators would back me up, I'll vouch.

Name one.

Self comes in later. Non-dualism is a priori and self comes in, mostly with post hoc thinking.

You mean, self-reference.

It's clear for me.

How can you claim anything is clear when you don't even bother to define your terms?

Self just means there are feedback loops.

Precisely.

To me it's nonsense to say that self (or self-reference) is necessary for consciousness.

Sorry Nick. That's your problem. Consciousness is the awareness of self.

For me the statement is laughable. Self is an aspect of consciousness.

You just contradicted yourself again.

This to me is a true materialist stance.

Yes Nick.

Of course if you believe that self is innate to consciousness

Like you.

you will likely not get in the teletransporter, depending on how you read "innate."

What?

Well, if all this reading has left you believing that self is innate to consciousness then I can't say it turns me on so much. I'm still waiting for this list of researchers you have that think consciousness is well understood.

What was that book by Dennett again?

You take a dogmatic position, Pixy, believing the mind is what the brain does.

How the hell is that dogmatic, Nick? There is more evidence supporting this concept than for every other hypothesis ever conceived put together. Relativity? Quantum mechanics? Gravity? Germ theory of disease? Mechanical principle of the lever and the inclined plane? Pah. Nothing.

But remember this is dogma.

No.

It is belief.

No.

I can and do believe the same.

So you say.

I am also aware that beliefs are not such a big deal.

Then why are you making a big deal out of them?

 

[rocketdodger]

Change blindness has nothing to do with it, RD.

Are you serious?

You really think the fact that people can be totally unaware of stuff right in front of their faces has nothing to do with the mechanisms of visual awareness?

 

[rocketdodger]

Something I can see.

Ahhh. Of course.

To a dualist, saying an object is "visible" when "you can see it" is a perfect definition -- it prevents any further discussion on the topic that might expose logical inconsistency.

If you were so worried about exposing your logical inconsistencies, Nick, then why did you come here?

This is the whole thing here, RD. You are not explaining the how of vision itself. I'm not asking you how the brain filters and constructs information - any fool can follow that.

Then why can't you follow it?

So how, in material terms, does conscious "seeing" occur?

Apparently you like to respond to posts without reading them -- I just explained how it occurs.

Errr, I explained what goes on with the neurons in your brain. I guess that isn't what you consider "seeing," though. Are you sure you aren't a dualist?

 

[Nick227]

"Circular" is better when it comes to, say, triangular wheels. Not so much for definitions.


That's just it, Nick. That's all there is. There is no "phenomenon" of vision, just data processing.


Sure.


Reference and self-reference.

I don't buy the "that's all there is" argument. I'm familiar with it, I've used it, but to me it still leaves a considerable explanatory gap. Here are a few issues I have....

Firstly, if we look at the human brain, I'm sure we agree that it is a massive, but largely decentralised, parallel processor. In the waking state, particularly, it is carrying out a phenomenal amount of processing. A colossal amount. Yet, only a microscopic portion of this is conscious. Thus, to me there must be some qualitative, material difference between conscious and unconscious processing. Not to make consciousness "special," in some romantic human way, but because this to me is simply logical.

Secondly, and relatedly, if I read you right, your contention is that areas of the brain dealing with Self arbitrate and define what is "conscious" or "not conscious." Yet it is clear for me personally that selfhood is just another aspect of consciousness, and not one that definably needs to be present in order for there to be conscious awareness. I don't see any inherently special function attributed to selfhood here on a strict materialist basis.

You might wish to accuse me of dualism for examining such things. That's up to you. But I am not a dogmatist here. I'm interested in consciousness and I don't buy it that it is purely a function of data processing.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Name one.

Well, for a start, pretty much anyone from Ramana Maharshi lineage. Among the Vedantics, Shankara and anyone else from his Advaita line. Annatta doctrine Buddhism I don't know so well but the theory of Dependent Origination doesn't sound to me to be too enamoured with the notion of self being implicit in consciousness! I would also confidently expect any modern-day "non dualists" to back me up here.

There might be a few meditators from spiritual disciplines who would assert self to be a priori, but I can't see any from the "awareness schools" going for it.

You mean, self-reference.

I mean self.

Sorry Nick. That's your problem. Consciousness is the awareness of self.

For me that is simply untrue. It is like being in a satellite and being told that the earth is most definitely flat because Websters says so.

You just contradicted yourself again.

Self is an aspect of consciousness. Where's the contradiction?

What was that book by Dennett again?

How the hell is that dogmatic, Nick? There is more evidence supporting this concept than for every other hypothesis ever conceived put together. Relativity? Quantum mechanics? Gravity? Germ theory of disease? Mechanical principle of the lever and the inclined plane? Pah. Nothing.

Empiric physical evidence, Pixy. Not theories. Dennett's book title is provocative and takes a stand. It's a great book. But just because he called his book "Consciousness Explained" does not mean that he has definably understood consciousness which, if you'd actually read it, you would know. He himself admits this throughout the work. He has also since run into trouble with "filling in," and has not long ago admitted being quite into Global Workspace Theory. Quite an admission given that Baars' hypothesis explicitly uses the "theatre metaphor" which Dennett spent a good 400 pages trying to demolish in his work.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Are you serious?

You really think the fact that people can be totally unaware of stuff right in front of their faces has nothing to do with the mechanisms of visual awareness?

Change blindness is when you don't recognise changes in a visual scene. It's fascinating but I am talking about the phenomenom of visual consciousness itself. Visual consciousness exists. Yet the brain processes vast amounts of visual information unconsciously. I am asking you to explain what, in qualitative material terms, creates the difference between conscious and unconscious "seeing."

Nick