The Hard Problem of Gravity

[westprog]

And what exactly do fossils have to do with a stone processing data? Do you even know how fossils develop?

However, evasion and goalpost moving noted.

Try better next time.

The fossil is clearly data, and it's clearly part of the rock. It's information that's been processed by the rock.

So you aren't willing to give your precise definition of data processing, but you accuse me of evasion and goalpost moving? That's typical for the thread so far.

 

[westprog]

This has already been covered in this thread as well.

I find it disingenuous that you bring up points already addressed and pretend that they haven't been.

The difference between a rock and a computer is that a computer processes information in an organized and predictable manner according to humans...

Exactly so. Exactly so. The computer processes information for humans. That is what data processing is. It takes data and produces information for humans to use..

However, since the whole idea of the Strong AI theory is to remove humans from their special position, it's not a very helpful definition. So you might want to try to talk yourself out of that corner.

"Points already addressed". Yeah right, all those arguments you won.

 

[yy2bggggs]

The fossil is clearly data, and it's clearly part of the rock. It's information that's been processed by the rock.

If you want processing, you have processing. There's no need to conflate data processing with data storage.

Is this more about arguing than making points? (*looks at the post count*)

Nevermind. Question withdrawn. Proceed.

 

[westprog]

Yep.

Rocks process data.

That doesn't mean it is of any use to any entity, though, and that is why they different from a computer.

Oh, nice little back pedaling there. Use "entity" instead of "human being".

Perhaps you could remind me of the SI unit of usefulness. Clearly it's an important scientific concept.

 

[westprog]

If you want processing, you have processing. There's no need to conflate data processing with data storage.

Is this more about arguing than making points? (*looks at the post count*)

Nevermind. Question withdrawn. Proceed.

No, it's at the very heart of the argument. I've been asking since the beginning for definitions of information, data processing, self-referential and so on. Instead I get claims that it was all done earlier, and I missed it somehow.

Now Rocketdodger is describing it in terms of usefulness, for God's sake. How is that in any sense a scientific description?

If the claim is that consciousness is a well defined phenomenon resulting from self-referential information processing, then we. need. a. definition. What's the point in quibbling over whether the rock is processing data, or storing it, or it's part of the total system - that's just dodging the main issue.

 

[rocketdodger]

I'm not sure what you mean--we can certainly use this information. If rocks are significantly warmer than their environment, there's a strong implication that they had energy input recently--for example, the sun was out.

But what is processing the information?

The rock is the information. The human feeling the warmth of the rock is the one doing the processing.

A computer is different. A computer can actually do all the processing and set a single bit of information that specifies whether the sun is overhead or not.

I'm not quite sure why this is supposed to be important. If a rock turned out to be a simple computer, what exactly does that imply? Is there some hidden a priori axiom that rocks must not meet any definition of consciousness for example?

According to westprog -- yes.

According to me -- not at all. In fact, I granted that given enough time a mountain would spontaneously arrive at a state where the information flow through all the molecules was isomorphic to the information flow in my mind right now and, for an instant, that mountain would think it was me sitting here typing this message.

Edit: Unless by "of any use" you're referring to things like switches as defined earlier? Still, my "why this is supposed to be important" question stands. I could probably, or not, think of some way a rock could be useful in that sense, but I'm not sure how it should affect anything either way.

Approaching this issue logically, it should not affect anything.

But, approaching it like westprog, it makes all the difference in the world. If you start out with the assumption that no matter what rocks are not conscious, then trying to show rocks to be somehow mathematically isomorphic to systems strong A.I. proponents claim are conscious seems like a smart strategy.

I mean, it is a smart strategy, except for the fact that it can't be done.

 

[westprog]

On the other hand, there are numerous entities you probably consider "conscious" that couldn't even begin to participate in a turing test.

Very young humans.
Mentally challenged humans.
Monkeys.
Dolphins.
Elephants.
.
.
.
etc

If you want to know why we feel you won't ever admit a silicon machine is "conscious," regardless of what it does, just look at the above.

This is basically the pattern with you (and all those like you). When asked for an example of a behavior that only conscious entities exhibit, you invariably come up with 1) something that clearly isn't a requirement and you just haven't thought it through or 2) something that computers haven't already done and you just aren't aware of it.

I give the Turing test because it should be easier for computers. They can just produce text. We can't expect a computer to show the external forms of behaviour that make us think dolphins are conscious. I'm lowering the bar. I'm allowing computers to produce totally digital output only. And still it seems to be too hard.

 

[rocketdodger]

Exactly so. Exactly so. The computer processes information for humans. That is what data processing is. It takes data and produces information for humans to use..

However, since the whole idea of the Strong AI theory is to remove humans from their special position, it's not a very helpful definition. So you might want to try to talk yourself out of that corner.

"Points already addressed". Yeah right, all those arguments you won.

I hate to burst your bubble, but the qualifier "according to humans" is implicit in every single statement made by humans.

Furthermore, if data processing is reserved for human use, what do you call the stuff that goes on in all other life forms? Honestly, what should we call it?

 

[rocketdodger]

Oh, nice little back pedaling there. Use "entity" instead of "human being".

It isn't me backpedalling. It is you being unable to parse a sentence.

Perhaps you could remind me of the SI unit of usefulness. Clearly it's an important scientific concept.

Sure thing.

I find it useful to know whether the sun is out because I don't like being rained on -- if I k now the sun is not out I won't go outside.

Birds find it useful to know if a cat is around because they don't like being eaten -- if a cat is around, they will fly away.

Bacteria find it useful to know how nutitious their surroundings are because they like to reproduce -- if the surroundings are nutritous, they will start dividing.

Computers find it useful to know how hot their CPU is running because they don't like to melt -- if they are too hot they turn up their fan speed.

Given some entity E and some piece of information X, X is "useful" to E if the state (or truth value) of X might impact the state of E, all else being equal

 

[rocketdodger]

I give the Turing test because it should be easier for computers. They can just produce text. We can't expect a computer to show the external forms of behaviour that make us think dolphins are conscious. I'm lowering the bar. I'm allowing computers to produce totally digital output only. And still it seems to be too hard.

lol.

You mean like that video I showed you of the bipedal robot running? Did you watch the end, where it served a platter of tea to some people and bowed to them? Can dolphins walk and serve tea?

Furthermore, if you were actually educated in this issue, you would know that the reason computers don't pass the turing test is because understanding human language like a human requires a body like a human.

That you think it would even make sense for an entity confined to a few silicon chips to converse about the external world in human language is indicative of how little you know.

 

[Christian Klippel]

The fossil is clearly data, and it's clearly part of the rock.

Exactly. It is the data.

It's information that's been processed by the rock.

Wrong. It is information that can be processed by something else, like a human brain or a computer. It is not information processed by the rock. Instead, it became the rock through a process called fossilization.

So you aren't willing to give your precise definition of data processing, but you accuse me of evasion and goalpost moving? That's typical for the thread so far.

You aren't willing to apply common sense and understanding of what people write. That's why your "arguments" are nothing more than evasion and goalpost moving. If you are continue to be unwilling to stay within the context of what is discussed, people will continue to accuse you of evasion and goalpost moving.

Care to tell how you made the stretch from the context of brains and computers processing data to a fossil representing data? See what i mean with context?

Edit: Some easy definition of data processing can be found here:
"Processing
Practically all naturally occurring processes can be viewed as examples of data processing systems where "observable" information in the form of pressure, light, etc. are converted by human observers into electrical signals in the nervous system as the senses we recognize as touch, sound, and vision. Even the interaction of non-living systems may be viewed in this way as rudimentary information processing systems. Conventional usage of the terms data processing and information systems restricts their use to refer to the algorithmic derivations, logical deductions, and statistical calculations that recur perennially in general business environments, rather than in the more expansive sense of all conversions of real-world measurements into real-world information in, say, an organic biological system or even a scientific or engineering system."

Edit 2:
westprog, care to answer the questions i asked you in post #2030? So far you are only demanding answers but seem to give none. Please answer my questions from #2030 first before asking me anything else or before you argue yet another thing.

 

[Belz...]

Get a program to contribute to this thread. It's entirely digital, so no problems interfacing.

Would that convince you ?

Because there have been a number of convincing chat-bots in the past. Are you saying that a marginally more complex and complete chat-bot would be conscious to you ?

 

[Belz...]

Yep.

Rocks process data.

That doesn't mean it is of any use to any entity, though, and that is why they different from a computer.

Actually, fossils, man.

But that changes nothing. Rocks are "like" computers in that every "thing" processes information. But rocks aren't "like" computers in that they are now self-aware, don't switch, etc.

 

[Belz...]

So you aren't willing to give your precise definition of data processing, but you accuse me of evasion and goalpost moving? That's typical for the thread so far.

How satisfying this must be for you. Someone gives you a definition over a 50+ page thread, and at some point since you refused to accept the definition, you ask for it again, saying it wasn't given, and when your opponents simply point out that it's been given and are reluctant to do your searching for you, you claim they are evading.

Of course, you aren't fooling me.

 

[rocketdodger]

How satisfying this must be for you. Someone gives you a definition over a 50+ page thread, and at some point since you refused to accept the definition, you ask for it again, saying it wasn't given, and when your opponents simply point out that it's been given and are reluctant to do your searching for you, you claim they are evading.

Of course, you aren't fooling me.

No kidding. I spent like 2 hours coming up with definitions in first order logic, of all things, and he claims nobody has provided definitions??

As I have said already -- what a joke.

 

[westprog]

I hate to burst your bubble, but the qualifier "according to humans" is implicit in every single statement made by humans.

Furthermore, if data processing is reserved for human use, what do you call the stuff that goes on in all other life forms? Honestly, what should we call it?

Really, it's up to you to come up with definitions that fit your theories. That you actually think that using phrases like "usefulness" is in any way relevant to a scientific discussion leads me to think you actually have no idea what the problem actually is.

Yes, there is an issue relating to other life forms. However, that doesn't bother me because I'm not trying to come up with a universally valid definition of data processing. As far as I'm concerned, it's entirely an engineering term, and it's field of reference can be arbitrarily set to cover whatever interests us. It's only when you are trying to define some kind of universal standard which takes humans out of their special position that the problem arises. And yet you persist in using the engineering term, with its implicit links to human needs, as if it had some kind of general application anywhere in the universe.

And the sad thing is, you don't even know you're doing it.

 

[westprog]

But what is processing the information?

The rock is the information.

This is a failure to understand what information is, in a physical sense. The rock receives information from its environment - specifically the sun. It processes that vast amount of information - trillions of photons - into a single temperature value.

The human feeling the warmth of the rock is the one doing the processing.

At least that is right. It's always a human at the end of the information chain.*

A computer is different. A computer can actually do all the processing and set a single bit of information that specifies whether the sun is overhead or not.

Again, that bit has no more significance than a warm rock. We can connect a thermocouple to the rock, run it through an ADC, put it into a computer and set a bit - but that information has no more significance than putting our hand on the rock and measuring ambient temperature that way.

It's very, very strange that you don't realise this.

According to westprog -- yes.

According to me -- not at all. In fact, I granted that given enough time a mountain would spontaneously arrive at a state where the information flow through all the molecules was isomorphic to the information flow in my mind right now and, for an instant, that mountain would think it was me sitting here typing this message.



Approaching this issue logically, it should not affect anything.

But, approaching it like westprog, it makes all the difference in the world. If you start out with the assumption that no matter what rocks are not conscious, then trying to show rocks to be somehow mathematically isomorphic to systems strong A.I. proponents claim are conscious seems like a smart strategy.

I mean, it is a smart strategy, except for the fact that it can't be done.

We aren't even talking about consciousness here. We're discussing data processing, which clearly takes place everywhere, all the time - or else only when humans* interact with information. It's the futile attempts to make computers something special and unique in the universe that is so hugely flawed.


*Or possibly a dolphin. That's a favourite red herring to muddy the waters.

 

[Christian Klippel]

It's only when you are trying to define some kind of universal standard which takes humans out of their special position that the problem arises.

Care to elaborate what that special position is supposed to be? Or do you simply drop such words here just to suit your case?

 

[Christian Klippel]

Again, that bit has no more significance than a warm rock. We can connect a thermocouple to the rock, run it through an ADC, put it into a computer and set a bit - but that information has no more significance than putting our hand on the rock and measuring ambient temperature that way.

It's very, very strange that you don't realise this.

Again comparing apples to oranges. It is the computer that gets the data about the temperature of the rock, processes it, and then sets a bit or not. If you really want to compare a rock to a computer, then the rock itself would need to measure the temperature, process that information and alter the state of a bit in itself that would then produce a directly usable signal to switch on a fan (read: it would need some internal transistor to do the switching).

And did you realize that you yourself with the part after the "- but" just acknowledged that data processing inside a computer is no different than the processing inside the brain, did you?

 

[Belz...]

This is a failure to understand what information is, in a physical sense.

You're saying that a rock isn't information ? Why would photons be, then ?

We aren't even talking about consciousness here. We're discussing data processing, which clearly takes place everywhere, all the time - or else only when humans* interact with information. It's the futile attempts to make computers something special and unique in the universe that is so hugely flawed.

WHAT ? Now I know you're being dishonest. WE're the ones trying to make it anything BUT special, by saying that there is nothing inherently mysterious or inexplicable about consciousness and that it most assuredly applies to computers AND humans AND dolphins.