The hard problem of consciousness

[westprog]

You seriously mean you've never ran?

I didn't say that.

 

[PixyMisa]

I dont see a problem with a machine trying to reason either, no hard problem there. Automated computation, math formulas, information processes, no problem at all. When we add an experiencer we have a problem.

In other words if you were this highly complex electro-chemical computer
in the classical sense you wouldn't be experiencing anything, there wouldn't be anything more than computation.

How, exactly, is experience different to computation?

I like to think of the problem in terms of AI. If you were to build an AI that truly had experiences and not merely programmed to "act" as it were having experiences, how would you build such a thing?

Me, I'd start with NAND gates.

Do you believe that this would be achieved by adding more compexity? More transistor, more memory, more data and more sophistacated algorithms . What you get is
more information processes at a faster rate. Does faster computation equal experience/consciousness?

Not equal, no. But experience and consciousness are computation.

The only thing that comes close to experience in a computer is a transistor reacting to a signal. This is not even an experience but merely a physical reaction based on it properties.

What's the difference?

No matter how many trillions of transistors the AI has, it's "experience" is limited to what a single transistor can do, and that is to react to an electrical impulse, to forward to the next transistor or stop it there etc.

Always win at chess, marry a princess, study hard and be an eminent professor...

If an AI's sense perception(forexample seeing a flower) would be a few million transistors flipping on/off what would experience these transistors/signals? another set of transistors?

No, the same bunch of transistors, via a feedback loop. That's the distinction between something like a thermostat, which Dennett describes as aware, and something that is self-aware.

and where does the information go from there?

Round and round.

Sorry bout the rambling, but my point is, there is no conceived way of how a transistors or neurons could achieve more than computation.

Well, sure. Absolutely. But entirely irrelevant, because experience is computation.

The problem is: experience is not a function in the classical sense.

Eh?

 

[Darat]

I didn't say that.

You said: "...I don't claim to experience ran, and more to the point, nor does anyone else....."

What did that mean then?

 

[PixyMisa]

Exactly it goes deeper than that. The agrument that sufficient compelixy gives rise to consciousness is a rather shallow and abstract one. As someone already stated here, it's no better than saying "god did it".

Sufficient complexity does give rise to consciousness, though. We look at humans, with their sufficiently complex brains, and we find that many of them are conscious. We take their brains away, and they become unconscious. Fairly simple demonstration. More subtly, we poke and pry and poison those brains in sundry ways, and the consciousness changes in response - which does not happen if you poke at the person's lunch, or a rock in the car park.

Now I'm not claiming to know, but i'm willing to argue that todays scientific explanations give nothing to the HPC.

Of course not. The only response required is "Define qualia." If we ever get a meaningful reply, then we can take up the rest of the the supposed problem.

My only proof is subjective experience but I believe you have the same ability. I experience, and I take that as a undeniable fact. To this day nobody has given this a valid scientific explanation or even plausible machanism. Computation and complexity is the prevailing theory but seems to falls short.

Why do you say that?

Theres alot of suggestion that different kind of computation or architecture would do it, but it's all still computation, automated processes that dont give ANY explanation to experience ONLY HOW IT PROCESSES INFORMATION.

Experiences are information.

I see computation different from experience. Computation is a process with some logical function or an end result that we can all understand.
A signal is sent from point A to point B and such and such happens.

That's not computation. That's just a signal.

In the case of computing an experience what would it look like on paper?

Like a big stack of paper with printing on it.

What is the end result in a "computation of experience"?

Experience.

 

[westprog]

How, exactly, is experience different to computation?

But experience and consciousness are computation.

That's an assertion, but I'm not aware of any evidence that it's true.


Experience, consciousness and computation seem to me to be three different things. If they are to be linked together, there needs to be some explanation as to why they are the same thing.

 

[PixyMisa]

Yes, that is the crux of the discussion. Dennett first said that a thermostat is aware. He then said that it is not aware that it is aware.

I agree with Dennett here.

Does the thermostat become uncomfortable as the temperature rises?

Maybe. After all, it responds by trying to reduce the temperature. You could call its awareness "discomfort" if you liked.

Why or why not? What is discomfort? We understand what it is from an evolutionary POV. Pain and discomfort are very powerful motivators.

And in this case, the thermostat is motivated to lower the temperature.

An entity capable of such is more likely to avoid falling into a fire than ones that are not. Is there a difference between detection and experience? I would have to say yes. Experience is subjective. A person who is paralyzed could have electrodes implanted in his or her skin to detect changes in temperature but still not be able to experience the sensation of heat and cold. He or she could also theoretically have electrodes implanted to stimulate the sensation of heat and cold.

When you say "subjective" here, it seems to me to simply mean "stuff that happens in the brain". I don't actually mind that definition, though.

 

[PixyMisa]

That's an assertion, but I'm not aware of any evidence that it's true.

Well then.

In what way are experiences different to computation? I assert that they are the same thing. You can shoot my down simply by naming a property of experiences that is actually demonstrable that cannot likewise be ascribed to computation.

Experience, consciousness and computation seem to me to be three different things. If they are to be linked together, there needs to be some explanation as to why they are the same thing.

Oh, that's easy: They act, in all respects, exactly alike.

 

[Belz...]

Well, dont you have experiences?

My nervous system responds to stimuli.

Do you experience a questioning of your experience

Gosh, I hate philosophers. Could you phrase that in a way that means something ?

 

[PixyMisa]

A thermostat reacts according to the physical laws, same as the rock...same as any physical system, be it a bunch of neurons or transistors.

A fine summation.

In the case of human brain, the question is how do you go from
neurons reacting to experience.

Exactly the same way.

Of course, the human brain is about a trillion times as complex as a thermostat.

 

[Belz...]

what is the final destination of that information that makes that jump from computation to experience?

You are assuming that there is one.

 

[Belz...]

I'm saying that we have no idea what causes consciousness. That seems to be such an obvious thing to say that it's almost embarassing to keep repeating it.

It appears to be a physical phenomenon.

Actually, it appears to be something entirely NON-physical. That's why people have been believing in souls for longer than civilisation can remember.

 

[PixyMisa]

So what is the physical explanation of consciousness? Is it electrical? Quantum? Algorithmic?

Are you talking about human consciousness, or consciousness in general?

What are the equations for the consciousness theory?

Well, in the case of a thermostat, they can be quite readily provided if you like.

It's noteworthy that the theories mostly come from philosophers, not scientists

Only if you ignore all the scientific research into the subject.

with the occasional exception such as Penrose - and he's ready to admit that he's barely scratched the surface and may be totally wrong anyway.

He is indeed totally wrong. He explains properties of consciousness that don't exist via processes that do not happen.

That leaves this particular area at the Aristotle level.

Hardly.

Listen to the superb series of lectures by Jeremy Wolfe for MIT's Introduction to Psychology. It's only the basic stuff, but it will give you a much better understanding of what we actually know about the mind - which is vastly more than you seem to believe.

Having a plethora of explanations does not inspire confidence that the problem is easy.

Who said it was easy?

Having explanations that consist largely of handwaving and assertions does not inspire confidence. A thermostat has consciousness but a rock doesn't?

Yes. And it has been explained why this distinction is made.

It's up to the people putting forward theories to be able to back them up convincingly. The very fact that there are so many theories makes it clear that none of them have been in any way proven.

None of them have been proven, but many of them have been falsified - or shown to be unfalsifiable, or simply meaningless.

What's really strange is that the simple observation that there is not the remotest trace of any meaningfull scientific theory of consciousness at present - which is undoubtedly true

No. You may be ignorant of it; that does not mean it does not exist.

turns one into some kind of mystic. Sometimes "we don't know" is the only honest answer.

But not when you do know.

 

[Belz...]

That's an assertion, but I'm not aware of any evidence that it's true.


Experience, consciousness and computation seem to me to be three different things. If they are to be linked together, there needs to be some explanation as to why they are the same thing.

Actually, since we do have some evidence that they ARE the same (ever got drunk ?), why would you assume otherwise ?

 

[westprog]

Actually, since we do have some evidence that they ARE the same (ever got drunk ?), why would you assume otherwise ?

I've gotten drunk, but my computer hasn't.

Saying that consciousness is affected by the physical world, and interacts with it, doesn't mean that it's a computational phenomenon.

 

[Dancing David]

As far as we can tell, consciousness is entangled in the physical processes of actual human beings. However, there is no physical theory that goes in any way to begin to explain it. There's no experiment which has been able to quantify the phenomenon at all.

Wow, really? So you mean all the biologists and psychologists who study sensation and perception are just wasting their time?

this one discusses general areas:http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=51076

a little more specific:http://physrev.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/88/1/59?rss=1

a little specific but vague:http://www-staff.psychiatry.cam.ac.uk/~dew22/supervisions01/week3.shtml

 

[skiba]

This is what we've been saying about false assumption creating a problem that doesn't exist. "Experience" MEANS "reasoning, thinking, and having sense perceptions." They aren't two distinct things.

If I experience "silence", do I need to reason and think about that so an experience would accour?

the combination of sensory input and how the brain processes that information is what makes up experience. That's it, there's no evidence or logic that points to anything else.

You might as well be explaining how my PC is experiencing.

Combination of proceses makes up the experience? If I turn on my web cam and mic my PC does alot of processing, but no experience of that process. I'm sure you can recognize the fundamental difference between a machines computation and a human experience. Machines only react, but humans can experience their own reactions. Are you saying a reaction to a reaction multiplied by many factors somehow magically creates experience. It's only a chain of events, like a huge domino effect that repeats itself in different forms.

All I hear is the "PC explanation" and how that should be a accurate explanation to not have HPC.
Another one is: the explanation for subjective experience is hidden under the complexity of the brain, which I think is a form of whisfull thinkin. "something special happens when complexity exceeds a certain point".

Does this mean ANYTHING to you guys?

Why doesn't all this cognitive processing go on "in the dark," without any consciousness at all?

BTW this isn't some existential question of "why does this exist"

 

[Dancing David]

So what is the physical explanation of consciousness? Is it electrical? Quantum? Algorithmic? What are the equations for the consciousness theory?

It's noteworthy that the theories mostly come from philosophers, not scientists, with the occasional exception such as Penrose - and he's ready to admit that he's barely scratched the surface and may be totally wrong anyway. That leaves this particular area at the Aristotle level.

I think you are reading the wrong material. try sensation and perception in the visual process.

Having a plethora of explanations does not inspire confidence that the problem is easy. Having explanations that consist largely of handwaving and assertions does not inspire confidence. A thermostat has consciousness but a rock doesn't?

It's up to the people putting forward theories to be able to back them up convincingly. The very fact that there are so many theories makes it clear that none of them have been in any way proven.

Only if you read the philosophers.

How can there be a problem? Just count the pages.

What's really strange is that the simple observation that there is not the remotest trace of any meaningfull scientific theory of consciousness at present - which is undoubtedly true - turns one into some kind of mystic. Sometimes "we don't know" is the only honest answer.

My a bold statement.

I suggest that you perhaps first delve into a number of areas, neuroanatomy, neurobiology, neurotransmission, neural processing of sensation and perception, then perhaps go and study the behaviorsl model of psychology.

There really is a lot of science being done that does not involve high level abtracted models of dubious psychodynamic origin. Just because a lot of people who are not involved in the actual researxh make up a lot of stuff that has no bearing on the science does not mean that there are a plethora of theories, or that we are in some pre-science model.

 

[Dancing David]

Yes, I've read many of my own posts. I've even thought about them


The basic "explain it away" assertion about consciousness seems to be that because it's undefinable, undetectable and inexplicable, it doesn't exist. I know this not to be the case, because I directly experience it. Unlike the postulated quantity of ran - I don't claim to experience ran, and more to the point, nor does anyone else.

I'm considering the possibility that other people posting here don't directly experience consciousness in the same way that I do. That would explain a lot. Perhaps it's just me and the thermostats.

this is a silly question but it has great meaning:

How do you know that you are conscious?

 

[Darat]

I know I am because I experienced my ran!

 

[skiba]

Sometimes "we don't know" is the only honest answer.

Best line on this thread.

Some people insist that they know, until it's time to prove it.