The Hard Problem of Gravity

[Belz...]

Well, I would consider information processing to be any detectable/observable changing of information. Like if a rock changed temperature, there would be thermal data pertaining to that rock, which was processed by the material that the rock is made of.

So yeah, speaking for myself, I agree with you that rocks and atoms can, and do, process information.

Does anyone here disagree with what I just said?

They can record information but I'm not sure we can say they process it.

 

[westprog]

I agree that something has to be irreducible. I've yet to be convinced that it is consciousness.

~~ Paul

There's two different aspects to this. Something might not be ultimately irreducible, but is effectively so if we can't define it in terms of something more fundamental.

 

[westprog]

The question then becomes, what is the alternate explanation?

As a former dualist I couldn't imagine how atoms, molecules, cells and electro-chemical reactions could give rise to consciousness but then I came to the realization that I couldn't imagine how an undefined thing was any better at it. It's like saying I don't believe that psychology is the reason it appears that the magician saws the woman in half so it must be magic.

Until you posit a parsimonious alternative you are simply saying that ignorance is in and of itself an answer.

The obvious answer is that apparently consciousness is tied to the physical processes going on in a human being, in particular but not solely the brain. We don't have enough knowledge to define it more tightly than that.

The most fruitful avenue is clearly neurological research on human beings, but we are limited in that we can't deliberately cause damage to brains to see what happens, however interesting it might be.

 

[Mitchell314]

There's two different aspects to this. Something might not be ultimately irreducible, but is effectively so if we can't define it in terms of something more fundamental.

As of yet, in terms of appearance, perhaps. But that's because of the nature of the difficulties of trying to see what's going on, without harming the patient. Not to mention there are oodles of neurons connected to each other which presents a challenge in itself. But to say it can't be broken down into something more fundamental because it's hard to study is absurd.

 

[westprog]

That's because you aren't here to learn. You are here to argue. So you interpret all other posts as originating from the same sentiment.

You are, however, wrong.

The "content" in that post was to mention to you that the reason you is merely that you haven't thought about it long enough and that there is 40 years worth of research in this area that you could utilize if you really cared.

I spent over an hour figuring out how I might represent the concept of a "switch" using first order logic. I had to consult my old A.I. textbooks to brush up on the issue of knowledge representation before I even started, and I program A.I. for a living.

So if it took me that long to come up with a formal representation of something as simple as a single switch, how long do you think it would take you to come up with a formal represenation of something like human consciousness?

I don't know the answer to that. You might very well be more intelligent than me. But ask yourself this -- have you sat down with some tools and even tried to reduce human consciousness to simpler components?

There are a huge number of resources that you can draw on. I mean, the designers of Pixy's beloved SHRDLU had to figure out ways to formally represent a ton of stuff -- way back in the 70's. It probably took them weeks and weeks to figure that out. As of now, 30+ years later, there is a documented way to represent just about everything one would want to know about the universe in a formal manner that a machine can make use of.

My conclusion, based on your posts here over the years, is that you have not even looked into this. My conclusion is that the extent of your thinking on this issue is limited to the responses you make in these threads. Well, if that is true, it is no wonder you

I suppose that if you are really, really convinced that you are right, then the only explanation for disagreement is that the other person has a shallow and uninformed grasp of the subject, and hasn't thought about it enough.

The fundamental flaw of AI research is its basic assumption that its approach is the right way to produce consciousness. That's why, for all its assumptions, and achievemetns, the field has been such a disappointment.

 

[westprog]

The question then becomes, what is the alternate explanation?

As a former dualist I couldn't imagine how atoms, molecules, cells and electro-chemical reactions could give rise to consciousness but then I came to the realization that I couldn't imagine how an undefined thing was any better at it. It's like saying I don't believe that psychology is the reason it appears that the magician saws the woman in half so it must be magic.

Until you posit a parsimonious alternative you are simply saying that ignorance is in and of itself an answer.

Ignorance is not an answer, but it's a necessary precursor to finding an answer. You can never find the solution to anything unless you admit that you don't know it.

If "self-referential information processing" is not the key element of consciousness, then assuming that it is will be totally counter-productive. If consciousness lies elsewhere, then it will be much harder to track down.

 

[Mitchell314]

I suppose that if you are really, really convinced that you are right, then the only explanation for disagreement is that the other person has a shallow and uninformed grasp of the subject, and hasn't thought about it enough.

The fundamental flaw of AI research is its basic assumption that its approach is the right way to produce consciousness. That's why, for all its assumptions, and achievemetns, the field has been such a disappointment.

A) First of all, AI is a very broad topic. It doesn't have the sole goal of reproducing (or having it's own flavor) of consciousness. If anything (and I'm no expert, Rocket Dodger knows much more than I), it's telling a computer/robot/embedded system "Do something as needed done in an efficient manner."

B) What makes you say that AI is flawed in "the approach" to consciousness? For one, there are different ways to go about it. Two, on what grounds do you have to make this accusation?

C) Disappointment? I know we can't be well read in every discipline, but maybe you a least do a little research before you construct an argument against a very large field of research.

 

[cyborg]

The fundamental flaw of AI research is its basic assumption that its approach is the right way to produce consciousness.

As opposed to not even being able to define consciousness in a way that would allow an approach?

If it is flawed then it is flawed but I am not seeing what you're adding by essentially saying, "you can't say what it is."

 

[westprog]

Just by dint of existing and interacting atoms and their constituents perform logical operations. This is a basic scientific fact and I would love to see Pixy try to assert his way outta this one...

In fact, atoms actually perform real digital operations, as opposed to the analogue operations which we use to simulate digital actions. It's only at the quantum level that actual binary states exist.

 

[AkuManiMani]

AFAIK this is not so much the direction of GWT research and modelling. The basic idea of GWT is popular because at a theoretical level it works. Instead of their being a recipient of consciousness, an experiencer, which everyone knows doesn't work, there is just global access. In an array of parallel distributed modules all processing information, the information in the one that "shouts loudest" becomes conscious.

Thus GWT avoids some aspects of the HPC, those relating to selfhood especially. And it is not in contradiction with Strong AI, though it wouldn't to me agree with Pixy's notion of self-referencing being needed for consciousness.

Nick

Ah okay, gotcha.

Basically its one way of getting rid of the pesky binding problem. From what I've been reading I don't see any reason why the GTW wouldn't be compatible with some others. I'm guessing that an adequate solution to the HPC/EMA will involve the synthesis of this and some other promising models being proposed

 

[AkuManiMani]

No, they don't. This has been explained to you many times over.

Sure. The laws of thermodynamics are suspended at the decree of talking heads on the internet.

 

[PixyMisa]

As of yet, in terms of appearance, perhaps. But that's because of the nature of the difficulties of trying to see what's going on, without harming the patient. Not to mention there are oodles of neurons connected to each other which presents a challenge in itself. But to say it can't be broken down into something more fundamental because it's hard to study is absurd.

Indeed.

And the fact that consciousness is a product of brain activity, and the brain is made of neurons, and the neurons are made of molecules, and the molecules are made of atoms, and the atoms are made of baryons and leptons, and the baryons are made of quarks, does rather suggest that consciousness is not irreducible.

 

[westprog]

Perhaps.

Yet, to say this, you were forced to devise entirely new and arbitrary definitions of the ON state for various entities. The rocks, the water, the wind, the sun, whatever.

If a rock channels water south, is it ON or OFF? If the water comes from rain, is it ON or OFF? If the sun is blocked by clouds, if the wind is warm or cold, are these things ON or OFF?

Like I said, you can come up with definitions to suite your argument. That is fine with me, who cares.

Unfortunately for you, nobody else would know wtf you are talking about unless you explained it to them in great detail.

With a thermostat circuit ... not so. ON means current is flowing in one direction above a given threshold, OFF means it is not. Very simple -- and understood by almost everyone.

You are kind of like Nick227, I think. Neither of you seem to realize that the entire point of language is to allow intelligent agents to communicate with each other and that the more efficient and expressive a language the easier it is for them to do so.

You seem to be repeating my argument and claiming that it somehow justifies your position.

When you say and understood by almost everyone you mean understood by conscious human beings. They are the only constituents in the universe that actually care whether the AC is on or off. Indeed, they are the only constituents in the universe that we are aware of caring about anything*.

Because Mr Jones sets his thermostat to a chilly 55 degrees F, why should we assume that the thermostat cares what the temperature is? What additional understanding of thermostat operation do we gain by using anthropomorphic language about it?

 

[PixyMisa]

The fundamental flaw of AI research is its basic assumption that its approach is the right way to produce consciousness.

Which of its dozens of widely varying approaches is this flaw fundamental to, and why?

That's why, for all its assumptions, and achievemetns, the field has been such a disappointment.

I'm not disappointed. Are you disappointed, Rocketdodger? Anyone else?

Now, flying cars, yeah, that's a disappointment.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Actually, the fact that this is a public forum means that everyone remembers that the last time you were asked, by me, for such a definition you said there wasn't any :



Who's the liar, now ?

...........................................................

Belz... I posted a lengthy post restating the definition I've been going by, along with links to several other lengthy post in which I elaborate on it further. There is are several pages worth of me defining and defining what is meant by consicousness to the nth degree. Just because you can't be bothered with actually reading my responses does not make them magically disappear.

 

[AkuManiMani]

They can record information but I'm not sure we can say they process it.

I suggest you educate yourself on current physics and information theory.

 

[westprog]

Akin to searching for the mystical significance of feathers, wings, air pressure and momentum as they relate to flight.

There is no mystical significance to switches anymore than there is to the constituent elements of aerodynamic systems. That's just a strawman.

I wish it was a strawman. Read the thermostat discussion.

 

[westprog]

Well, I would consider information processing to be any detectable/observable changing of information. Like if a rock changed temperature, there would be thermal data pertaining to that rock, which was processed by the material that the rock is made of.

So yeah, speaking for myself, I agree with you that rocks and atoms can, and do, process information.

Does anyone here disagree with what I just said?

I think that it's fairly clear that if we use the scientific definition of information, then everything is passing on information all the time. It's also possible to find switches, and indeed networks of switches, simply by looking for them.

 

[westprog]

As opposed to not even being able to define consciousness in a way that would allow an approach?

If it is flawed then it is flawed but I am not seeing what you're adding by essentially saying, "you can't say what it is."

I'm not single-handedly blocking research into the field, you know. IMO the right way to study consciousness is to study conscious beings.

 

[cyborg]

I'm not single-handedly blocking research into the field, you know. IMO the right way to study consciousness is to study conscious beings.

And why exactly do you think AI doesn't do this? Plenty of AI research is about trying to replicate biological mechanism in analog systems as well as research into the "pure" mathematical foundations of thought in logical systems.