The Hard Problem of Gravity

[rocketdodger]

That's a reasonable proposal, but I'm a bit leery of accepting it. It seems that going that route invokes panpsychism and that opens other philosophical doors I'm not ready to get into yet...

Well, what do you say about a chimpanzee?

Are they "not as conscious" as we are?

Are they just conscious in a different way?

What makes you answer one way or the other?

 

[westprog]

Irrelevant, again. You're jumping left and right, trying to avoid having to admit the obvious.

And what is the obvious? If it's that obvious, you should state it and we can all go home.

 

[Belz...]

That's a reasonable proposal, but I'm a bit leery of accepting it. It seems that going that route invokes panpsychism and that opens other philosophical doors I'm not ready to get into yet...

All it implies is that there are levels of consciousness. Levels of complexity, that is.

 

[Belz...]

And what is the obvious? If it's that obvious, you should state it and we can all go home.

That water crystals are composed of the exact same thing as water droplets and yet they are not the same because of a different behaviour; and that this could very well be the case with computers, as Dodger expresses, and consciousness.

 

[westprog]

Nice try, but as you know, since we haven't a clue how consciousness work and how computation work... er... that means your crystal argument is ... wrong... somehow.

I'd like to see the crystal argument summarised. Have there been a lot of posts that I've missed where it's actually explained how crystallisation proves that computation is well defined physically?

 

[westprog]

That water crystals are composed of the exact same thing as water droplets and yet they are not the same because of a different behaviour; and that this could very well be the case with computers, as Dodger expresses, and consciousness.

"Could very well be the case"? Since Rocketdodger can't even say what it is that is doing the behaviour, or what the behaviour might be, he's not quite there yet, is he?

I've said repeatedly - there's no physical process going on in the working computer that isn't going on in the unconnected computer bits. It's no good saying that we can tell the two things apart. If we want to define a physical effect, we have to have a definition that is clear and objective.

The definition of "crystals" is clear and objective. We can apply it to the snowflake and the drop of water and see which one is crystalline. I've asked for a similar definition for computing and what's been offered is never quite the right fit. That's assuming that it means anything at all.

If "computing" cannot be physically defined, how can it be physically equivalent to something else that isn't physically defined?

 

[AkuManiMani]

Well, what do you say about a chimpanzee?

Are they "not as conscious" as we are?

Are they just conscious in a different way?

What makes you answer one way or the other?

I think we can be pretty confident that chimps are conscious and in a way very similar to us. This can be inferred by their external behaviors and from the fact that their biology and physiology is much like our own.

I think trickier questions would be if critters like ants are conscious and, if so, how is it different or similar to our own. Is consciousness something unique to animals or is it possible for life forms in other kingdoms to experience consciousness? How varied can conscious perceptions be? Is it possible to know exactly what physical state produces a particular kind of sensation?

I think these are answerable questions. What I'm not sure of is how far into the future it will be before we get conclusive answers

 

[AkuManiMani]

All it implies is that there are levels of consciousness. Levels of complexity, that is.

What I wonder is if there is a level of complexity, below which, consciousness is not possible. Complexity is relatively easy to recognize in regards to intelligence. What I wonder is if its possible to generate states like sensation in a system w/o intelligence, per se. If the capacity for sensation is a basic physical property such a fact could have huge implications. For now, I think I'll stick with the assumption that it is an emergent feature that can only arise at a certain level of complexity.

ETA: Been doing some browsing around on the topics we've been discussion and it seems that there's a philosophical view called hylopanthism which seems to be relevant.

 

[rocketdodger]

The definition of "crystals" is clear and objective. We can apply it to the snowflake and the drop of water and see which one is crystalline. I've asked for a similar definition for computing and what's been offered is never quite the right fit. That's assuming that it means anything at all.

Wrong.

I gave you a very clear definition. Just as clear, if not more, than the definition of a crystal. Crystal clear, in fact.

You can apply it to a computer and a smashed computer and see which one computes.

Just like you can apply the definition of crystal to a snowflake and a smashed snowflake to see which one is a crystal.

The fact that a keyboard computes on its own is about as relevant as the fact that a piece of a snowflake is still a crystal on its own.

If you take a crystal, and add more crystal, what you have is still crystalline. If you take a crystal, and subtract some crystal, you can still have crystal remaining.

If you take something that computes, and add more stuff that computes, what you have still computes. If you take something that computes, and subtract stuff that computes, you can still have something that computes remaining.

If, instead, you smash either one, what is left is not a crystal nor a computer, even though the pieces are still crystals or computers.

Furthermore

The definition of "crystalline" is arbitrary. There is no fundamental reason that a compound in the form of a crystal should be any different than the compound in any other form. It just so happens that humans find it useful to distinguish between crystalline and non-crystalline because crystals behave differently than non-crystals.

There is no fundamental difference between what is going on in a snowflake and a drop of liquid water.

 

[Belz...]

I'd like to see the crystal argument summarised. Have there been a lot of posts that I've missed where it's actually explained how crystallisation proves that computation is well defined physically?

No, I don't think you "missed" them.

I've said repeatedly - there's no physical process going on in the working computer that isn't going on in the unconnected computer bits.

Absolutely. This is why you are currently using a pile of unconnected computer parts to reat this post.

 

[Belz...]

What I wonder is if there is a level of complexity, below which, consciousness is not possible.

Yes. If you aren't aware of yourself, then you're not conscious.

 

[westprog]

Wrong.

I gave you a very clear definition. Just as clear, if not more, than the definition of a crystal. Crystal clear, in fact.

You can apply it to a computer and a smashed computer and see which one computes.

Yes, you gave a definition (though it was far from clear - indeed, it was mostly incomprehensible).

I then walked you through a series of test cases. "Is this computation, according to your definition?" "Yes", you answered, in each case. Eventually, I brought you to the pile of components, which, according to your definition, not mine or Aku's or anyone else's, were doing computation.

Just like you can apply the definition of crystal to a snowflake and a smashed snowflake to see which one is a crystal.

The fact that a keyboard computes on its own is about as relevant as the fact that a piece of a snowflake is still a crystal on its own.

If you take a crystal, and add more crystal, what you have is still crystalline. If you take a crystal, and subtract some crystal, you can still have crystal remaining.

If you take something that computes, and add more stuff that computes, what you have still computes. If you take something that computes, and subtract stuff that computes, you can still have something that computes remaining.

If, instead, you smash either one, what is left is not a crystal nor a computer, even though the pieces are still crystals or computers.

If you smash a crystal, then you can have many crystals. That seems simple enough. What happens when you smash up a computer depends on your definition. According to your definition, almost anything can and does perform computation. That's not my fault. I didn't choose that definition. If you don't like it, come up with something better.

Furthermore

The definition of "crystalline" is arbitrary. There is no fundamental reason that a compound in the form of a crystal should be any different than the compound in any other form. It just so happens that humans find it useful to distinguish between crystalline and non-crystalline because crystals behave differently than non-crystals.

There is no fundamental difference between what is going on in a snowflake and a drop of liquid water.

That's complete rubbish. The chemical bonds in a snowflake and liquid water are objectively different. It's quite easy to define, and it's quite easy to determine, and distinguish. There is energy bound up in those connections. That's why it's necessary to input energy into the snowflake to convert it to liquid. That energy can be measured. It's not some meaningless waffle like your definition of computation - it's actual, real science, and most importantly, it's objective.

 

[westprog]

No, I don't think you "missed" them.



Absolutely. This is why you are currently using a pile of unconnected computer parts to reat this post.

That's the definition of computing now? Being able to reat a post?

 

[rocketdodger]

I then walked you through a series of test cases. "Is this computation, according to your definition?" "Yes", you answered, in each case. Eventually, I brought you to the pile of components, which, according to your definition, not mine or Aku's or anyone else's, were doing computation.

When you smash a crystal, each piece is still a crystal. So what?

If you smash a crystal, then you can have many crystals. That seems simple enough.

Lol. You even admit it yourself. I am not sure where the disconnect in your mind is...

What happens when you smash up a computer depends on your definition. According to your definition, almost anything can and does perform computation. That's not my fault. I didn't choose that definition. If you don't like it, come up with something better.

According to the definition of crystalline, almost anything can be a crystal. So what?

That's complete rubbish. The chemical bonds in a snowflake and liquid water are objectively different. It's quite easy to define, and it's quite easy to determine, and distinguish. There is energy bound up in those connections. That's why it's necessary to input energy into the snowflake to convert it to liquid. That energy can be measured. It's not some meaningless waffle like your definition of computation - it's actual, real science, and most importantly, it's objective.

How are they objectively different, westprog?

Because the bond energy is above or below some threshold? What is so "objective" about that threshold? The fact that it is linked to a different behavior? What is so "objective" about the behavioral difference?

If humans didn't exist, what would be so special about crystallization?

Also, note that you are wrong about crystallization being so cut and dry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal

 

[westprog]

When you smash a crystal, each piece is still a crystal. So what?



Lol. You even admit it yourself. I am not sure where the disconnect in your mind is...

The disconnect is in your view that making comments about crystals proves something about computers.

According to the definition of crystalline, almost anything can be a crystal. So what?

No, it can't. Much as you might like to fuzzy up the definition of crystals, we know that clouds of interstellar gas aren't crystalline.

How are they objectively different, westprog?

Because the bond energy is above or below some threshold? What is so "objective" about that threshold? The fact that it is linked to a different behavior? What is so "objective" about the behavioral difference?

If humans didn't exist, what would be so special about crystallization?

If human beings didn't exist, the salt crystal on the saucer would still behave differently to the drop of water on another saucer.

Also, note that you are wrong about crystallization being so cut and dry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal

Of course the definitions of macroscopic phenomena like crystals have fuzzy boundaries. There are going to be areas where it's difficult to define whether something is crystalline or amorphous. I don't need a wikipaedia article to tell me that. However, a salt crystal is still crystalline. A drop of water isn't. That is because we have an objective definition. When we encounter something that has intermediate characteristics, we amend the definition.

If we had a definition of "computing" that had a fuzzy area in the middle that needed dealing with, that wouldn't mean that we didn't have a useful definition. It would mean that the definition needed twiddling. As it is, we have a definition that - according to the step by step Q&A we did a couple of pages back - includes almost anything.

 

[westprog]

That's the definition of computing now? Being able to reat a post?

In fact, it's closer to the "real" definition of computing than the attempts at a physical definition. When we talk about a computing device, we mean a device that helps a human being carry out the mathematical process of computing. It's a utilitarian definition. We don't care about all the physically equivalent processes going on all around us. We don't call those "computing", not because they aren't effectively equivalent to what is going on in our computing devices, but because they don't impact on our consciousness in a particular way.

It's noteworthy that as Rocketdodger's physical model collapsed, he reverted to the utilitarian, engineering model for computing, which is in practice the one we all use. It's meaningless to consider computing as taking place in the absence of a human being to interpret the results.

 

[Belz...]

That's the definition of computing now? Being able to reat a post?

Westprog, you are the only person here who thinks your little games make you "clever". You are tacitly conceding the argument.

 

[westprog]

Westprog, you are the only person here who thinks your little games make you "clever". You are tacitly conceding the argument.

Well, if all I'd done was make a joke about a spelling mistake, you might have a point. But you don't.

Try addressing my more substantive posts. Until you do, you are tacitly...oh, forget it.

 

[Nick227]

Yes. If you aren't aware of yourself, then you're not conscious.

What do you mean by "aware of yourself?" Somatosensory awareness? Presence of inner speech? Self is not intrinsic to awareness at an experiential level.

Nick

 

[Belz...]

Well, if all I'd done was make a joke about a spelling mistake, you might have a point. But you don't.

Try addressing my more substantive posts.

I haven't see those for a while now. You'd almost think it's because you've been defeated and refuse to admit it.

I could be wrong, though. But so far the evidence doesn't help you.