Resolution of Transporter Problem

[PixyMisa]

There's a hard problem or there's no hard problem.

There's no hard problem.

What Chalmers refers to as the "Easy Problem" is where the hard work is.

What Chalmers refers to as the "Hard Problem" isn't a problem at all.

Recently, I've been pointing out to the hard problem deniers that, as a rule, they're living a bit in cloud cuckoo land. In their zest to forward materialism they overlook serious issues.

Which you are unable to name.

I can say that it's all information processing. I can say that the mind is what the brain does. It's not a big deal. But I find it more rewarding to really start to look at the issues.

What issues?

I don't care if materialism is right or wrong. I'm actually more interested in what's true. You don't see so much of this on this forum.

You're not paying attention then.

You stick Blackmore and Dennett away in a little box somewhere in your head labelled "weird" because you don't want to deal with the issues they raise.

What issues?

And they're actually 2 of the most forthright and outspoken materialists alive. Ramachandran you don't read.

Yes, I do.

Baars you don't read.

Okay, there you've got me.

For me, you just want to be able to wrap it all up as something you already understand in your own head. You resist the interventions of any annoying researchers or pundits who threaten this illusory state of awareness by sidelining them with a few haphazard categorisations. You then reinforce it all by summoning up the opinions of a few other deluded souls as back-up. This is what I see.

By referring to these mysterious "issues". Which are... What?

If and when you do open up to the wider body of research and opinion on consciousness about the first thing you will see is the open admission that actually we know very, very little thus far about the subject.

Nope.

Because that is actually not what the issue is. It is not about language, though you repeatedly come back to this "back door" as a way of not looking. The hard problem is not to do with language.

It is, in one sense. The so-called Hard Problem is commonly expressed in words that do not mean anything in terms of a naturalistic understanding of consciousness.

From Wikipedia:

"Why do qualia exist?"

They don't. The idea of qualia is incoherent.

"Why aren't we philosophical zombies?"

The idea of p-zombies is incoherent. (Or alternately, we are p-zombies. Either they don't and can't exist or we is them; there is no third option.)

The issues with self are not to do with language.

Often they are. If you just keep rephrasing a meaningless question, it is not going to magically acquire meaning.

You may need to be very clear about language and semantics sometimes when discussing them, but they are not about language.

Wrong.

 

[rocketdodger]

Now, just to explain a bit further, I'm not saying that the teleporter does in fact kill people. That depends on the definition of self. If your definition includes physical continuity of process, then it kills you. If your definition only requires continuity of internal state (internal information, D2 if I recall correctly), then it doesn't kill you.

Good I am glad we agree. Just needed to settle on definitions it seems.

 

[rocketdodger]

No. You take a process; you encode it, destroying the process in the process; you reinstantiate the process elsewhere.

That's a discontinuity.

Well it is a discontinuity in the sense that the process ceases and another begins, yes. But there is never a period where there is no process at all, which is what I was talking about. In other words the time interval between one process being destroyed and the next one beginning can't be larger than zero.

 

[cyborg]

You get teleported.

Identify the discontinuity.

 

[PixyMisa]

Well it is a discontinuity in the sense that the process ceases and another begins, yes. But there is never a period where there is no process at all, which is what I was talking about. In other words the time interval between one process being destroyed and the next one beginning can't be larger than zero.

Sure - but there you are talking about (assuming the teleporter universe bears some resemblence to our own) some distinctly different process, such as the transmission of an encoded signal by laser, which takes measurable time, before the original process is reinstantiated in a recognisable form.

No information is lost (per the premise of the argument), but the process of being you (or me, whoever's turn it is) stops for some distinct period: You are disassembled and encoded, transmitted, and decoded and reassembled.

To answer Cyborg, there's your discontinuity. You don't know it happens (assuming that your brain activity is frozen during the disassembly and reassembly, or that it is quick enough that you can't perceive it), but with the appropriate instruments, you (or a third party) can observe and measure the time when there was no process that would be identified as you under the normal understanding of human identity.

You could take it another step, and say that the process is instantaneous, that there is only a spatial and not a temporal discontinuity, but then you are starting to talk about a universe that differs significantly from our own, and there's no particular reason why our sense of self would translate meaningfully.

 

[PixyMisa]

Good I am glad we agree. Just needed to settle on definitions it seems.

Yep.

As I said in reply to Nick, by my current definition of self, the teleporter kills people. But if such a thing existed (and it's not completely impossible, though it couldn't be done as described) I'd be forced to re-examine my definition.

Let's say that all your neurons were replaced over time with artificial neurons that acted just like the real thing but had the added ability to dump out their state - all of them, as near to simultaneously as you want - and that data could then be collected, transmitted, and downloaded into another artificial brain.

This violates no physical law, it's just a lot of fiddly engineering, but - bloink! - you were there and now you're here. And maybe there's two of you and maybe there's one and maybe there's none at all, because you died when you replaced your own neurons with artificial ones.

All depends on your definitions.

 

[Nick227]

Which you are unable to name.

What issues?

OK. I currently appear to be experiencing a computer monitor right in front of me. I understand that this is a representation. Please tell me...

(i) where precisely this coherent visual representation is physically located in the brain and

(ii) why it appears that someone is viewing it.

Nick

 

[rocketdodger]

(i) where precisely this coherent visual representation is physically located in the brain and

It is somewhere between the tip of your nose and the back of your head.

If you want a more detailed explanation, you need to provide a more detailed definition of "coherent visual representation."

((ii) why it appears that someone is viewing it.

Because you are viewing it.

If you want more fine grained information then you need to provide a similarly fine grained definition of "appears," 'someone," and "viewing."

 

[Nick227]

It is somewhere between the tip of your nose and the back of your head.

If you want a more detailed explanation, you need to provide a more detailed definition of "coherent visual representation."



Because you are viewing it.

If you want more fine grained information then you need to provide a similarly fine grained definition of "appears," 'someone," and "viewing."

Oh God, not the old "you need to define terms more" routine againnnn, RD. No matter how many times I pull you up on it, you just go for it again and again. You don't need to comprehensively define every word here. It's not needed.

You do the word thing and Pixy will just ask questions instead of answering them. Ho hum.

Let's face it. Neither of you actually have the first clue what you're rabbiting on about here.

How about the old "stream of consciousness" debate then, RD? Is there such a thing or is there no such animal? Are you with Baars? Or are you with O'Regan? Go on, blind me with the sheer ferocity of your awareness. Dazzle me with that finely honed mind. Or otherwise go back to demanding I define every word I've written before you can possibly answer, backing it up with a completely mismatched example. Your choice, dude...

Nick

 

[Nick227]

It is somewhere between the tip of your nose and the back of your head.

If you want a more detailed explanation, you need to provide a more detailed definition of "coherent visual representation."

OK, let's make it really, really simple to understand. Look in front of you. You see things in your visual field, yes? It's a representation created by your brain. It's an image. Now....where exactly within the brain is that image? Where is it represented precisely and how come it's conscious? What actually does "being conscious" mean here?

Because you are viewing it.

You're saying there's a little man inside my head who's watching it? Or what exactly?

Nick

 

[rocketdodger]

Oh God, not the old "you need to define terms more" routine againnnn, RD. No matter how many times I pull you up on it, you just go for it again and again. You don't need to comprehensively define every word here. It's not needed.

Actually, it is needed, because the HPC only exists if you don't formally define things.

 

[rocketdodger]

OK, let's make it really, really simple to understand. Look in front of you. You see things in your visual field, yes?

According to common meanings of "see," yes I see things.

It's a representation created by your brain.

What is? You are already throwing things around without enough prior information.

The representations of things in front of me are the representations. That is tautological, but that is how things end up when you define them.

It's an image.

No, it isn't. Once again you go too far.

The pattern of neural activation on my retina and perhaps at various levels of my visual cortex might be called an "image" according to common meanings of the term. The "seeing" is very far removed from such "images" in terms of processing.

Now....where exactly within the brain is that image? Where is it represented precisely and how come it's conscious?

Given what I said above, you should realize that these questions are meaningless. You can't look at a neural network and ask "where is it's knowledge of X?" Well, you can, but the answer won't get you anywhere.

What actually does "being conscious" mean here?

Why are you asking me? You are the one throwing the term around.

You're saying there's a little man inside my head who's watching it? Or what exactly?

I am saying something labeled "you" -- the same thing that is "reading" this post -- is acting in a manner consistent with the behavior labeled "watching," and the object of said behavior is the monitor in front of "you."

 

[Z]

Might as well ask about a computer's internal experience of representing signals coming from the internet connection, and 'what it is' that is 'observing and translating' those signals.

For all we know, a computer has a conscious experience comparable to our own, but has no random and abstract circuitry open for it to express its personal experience of consciousness. Now, are we going to start asking where in the processor the 'representation of keystrokes' appears to the machine's awareness, and what it is that is 'feeling the keystrokes'?

 

[PixyMisa]

OK. I currently appear to be experiencing a computer monitor right in front of me. I understand that this is a representation. Please tell me...

(i) where precisely this coherent visual representation is physically located in the brain and

Wrong.

(ii) why it appears that someone is viewing it.

Because someone is viewing it.

 

[Nick227]

I am saying something labeled "you" -- the same thing that is "reading" this post -- is acting in a manner consistent with the behavior labeled "watching," and the object of said behavior is the monitor in front of "you."

Something labelled you!? The same thing that is reading this post?! RD, you are so enmeshed in duality it's ridiculous. Materialism....no one is reading. No one is watching. If it's just data processing, how can it be that something is observing data processing? This is just nonsense, RD. The notion of an observer and the notion of an experience can only be aspects of the processing...flatlanders dreaming of 3D, a trick of the light. I'm sorry but this is kid's stuff. This fantasy you have that you're a materialist!

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Might as well ask about a computer's internal experience of representing signals coming from the internet connection, and 'what it is' that is 'observing and translating' those signals.

For all we know, a computer has a conscious experience comparable to our own, but has no random and abstract circuitry open for it to express its personal experience of consciousness.

Z...where precisely is a computer going to have an experience? Give it to me in straight materialist terms. Where is it?

Nick

 

[Z]

Z...where precisely is a computer going to have an experience? Give it to me in straight materialist terms. Where is it?

Nick

A computer 'has' an experience throughout its circuitry - just as a brain 'has' an experience thoughout its neurons.

I put 'has' in 'scare quotes' because so many people are 'scared' of using this verb, even though its use is appropriate enough, given our generic use of language.

Has, of course, denotes a form of 'ownership', but it's more clear to suggest that an experience 'occurs' throughout the circuitry/brain. When I said a computer 'has' a consciousness experience, I use the term much in the same way I would use the term when saying 'The brain has an aneurism' or 'the circuits had a critical failure' or 'PixyMisa had an electric tingle after touching the cattleman's fence'.

You can't separate the computer from the computed. The experience isn't a separate thing being had by some mysterious individual; it's a process occuring as a part of the individual. You don't 'have a sight', you see. You don't 'have a touch' (oooh, that could be taken wrong!), you feel. You don't 'have an experience', you experience.

You are your brain. A copy of your brain is a copy, not your brain. The logic is inescapable, as long as we assume materialism.

OTOH, if we assume dualism, then we're little tiny, quantum-sized people watching the output of our brain on tiny, quantum-sized screens. Then, of course, the question becomes - where does the quantum-brain 'have' an experience of watching the quantum-screen?

After that, it's sub-quantum movie watchers all the way down.

 

[Z]

Something labelled you!? The same thing that is reading this post?! RD, you are so enmeshed in duality it's ridiculous. Materialism....no one is reading. No one is watching. If it's just data processing, how can it be that something is observing data processing? This is just nonsense, RD. The notion of an observer and the notion of an experience can only be aspects of the processing...flatlanders dreaming of 3D, a trick of the light. I'm sorry but this is kid's stuff. This fantasy you have that you're a materialist!

Nick

So what do you refer to when you say, 'I'? From this post, you seem to be claiming that there IS no 'you', at all.

Materialism accepts the label 'you' and 'I' just fine. It places all strictly into deterministic, material terms. 'You' (presumably) are a human being which, on the Internet, goes by Nick. 'You' is a body, a brain, a history of being, a group of possessions, an ideology, part of a social pattern containing other human beings, and so forth. 'You' are reading this post right now. 'You', however, are not non-existent - or 'you' couldn't reply to this message.

You almost seem to be arguing some bizarre form of acosmism or nihilism, not materialism.

The brain is reading. The brain is watching. How it does so is still not understood, but that's the end of the line, materialistically speaking, and that's where the label finds its most fundamental use - at the brain.

You are your brain.

 

[Nick227]

A computer 'has' an experience throughout its circuitry - just as a brain 'has' an experience thoughout its neurons.

I put 'has' in 'scare quotes' because so many people are 'scared' of using this verb, even though its use is appropriate enough, given our generic use of language.

I'm sorry but to me, as an actual materialist, what you have written above is pure dualist fantasy nonsense. The computer does not have experiences. You might be able to get it to print out the statement "I have experiences" but this is a close as you'll get.

The whole notion of experience is inevitably dualistic at a conceptual level. This to me is really basic, basic materialism. I mean, I'm talking basic here.

Has, of course, denotes a form of 'ownership', but it's more clear to suggest that an experience 'occurs' throughout the circuitry/brain. When I said a computer 'has' a consciousness experience, I use the term much in the same way I would use the term when saying 'The brain has an aneurism' or 'the circuits had a critical failure' or 'PixyMisa had an electric tingle after touching the cattleman's fence'.

Processing occurs. Given that the human and the computer both have a state that might be deemed healthy or unhealthy so processing can likewise be labelled.

You can't separate the computer from the computed. The experience isn't a separate thing being had by some mysterious individual; it's a process occuring as a part of the individual. You don't 'have a sight', you see. You don't 'have a touch' (oooh, that could be taken wrong!), you feel. You don't 'have an experience', you experience.

Personally I would consider this statement complete unmitigated dualist bollocks.

As a materialist it must be accepted that in reality no one is experiencing. How you then explain the apparent state of experience is up to you. There are ways. But what is utterly clear to any real materialist is that the notion of experience is completely an illusion.

You are your brain.

If I'm "my brain" then to what does the "my" in "my brain" refer. I'm sorry, but again this is so basic it's ridiculous you don't get it. Daniel Dennett...benign user illusion. Please read.

A copy of your brain is a copy, not your brain. The logic is inescapable, as long as we assume materialism.

As long as we assume dualism. To whom does the word "your" refer? If you are your brain then to whom does the word "your" refer? I'll help you out a little here....it refers to nothing. That's why it can be replicated.

Now, finally, will you get in the ****ing teletransporter or otherwise go away somewhere and read a book written in the last couple of decades.

Nick

 

[rocketdodger]

Materialism accepts the label 'you' and 'I' just fine. It places all strictly into deterministic, material terms. 'You' (presumably) are a human being which, on the Internet, goes by Nick. 'You' is a body, a brain, a history of being, a group of possessions, an ideology, part of a social pattern containing other human beings, and so forth. 'You' are reading this post right now. 'You', however, are not non-existent - or 'you' couldn't reply to this message.

I wouldn't waste your time, Z. You aren't the first to try to explain this to him.

You almost seem to be arguing some bizarre form of acosmism or nihilism, not materialism.

He is. Again, you aren't the first to be in this spot!

Ironically, Nick's apparent belief that words and communication are useless -- because nothing really exists -- doesn't prevent him from making widespread use of words and communication.