|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
Tags | artificial intelligence , consciousness |
View Poll Results: Is consciousness physical or metaphysical? |
Consciousness is a kind of data processing and the brain is a machine that can be replicated in other substrates, such as general purpose computers. | 81 | 86.17% | |
Consciousness requires a second substance outside the physical material world, currently undetectable by scientific instruments | 3 | 3.19% | |
On Planet X, unconscious biological beings have perfected conscious machines | 10 | 10.64% | |
Voters: 94. You may not vote on this poll |
1st June 2012, 03:29 PM | #441 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,211
|
I just googled it, but I can't find anything in any sort of reputable published literature to back this up. Do you have a link? I'm sure Penrose does not have time to respond to every online critisism of his work, im pretty sure he sticks to the more established scientific methods of peer review and journal publications. And if it is published I expect he will have replied to it with a reposte.
Again, if you want to read that Penrose paper I linked to and comment on why its "crazy" then please do. If you dont even want to read it then please dont keep arguing from ignorance. |
1st June 2012, 03:37 PM | #442 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,946
|
LOl, did you even read the articles on the fallacy?
Let put it in language that might be easier for you: Penrose's arguments surrounding quantum consciousness are tantamount to someone arguing that a car engine can't function by internal combustion because there is no way little explosions could make the car teleport. I know what his arguments entail -- that humans can reach conclusions that can't be arrived at using an algorithm guaranteed to halt, and that microtubules somehow allow neurons to make use of quantum computing. I know why his arguments are invalid -- every human conclusion can be arrived at via an algorithm, just not necessarily one guaranteed to halt in all cases, and even if it wasn't, quantum computing doesn't do anything to escape computability. So Penrose's argument is basically that a car needs to teleport to move, and that you can get a car to teleport by just giving it higher octane gasoline. We happen to know that no, cars can move by rolling, and no, even if they needed to teleport, it would require more than super-gasoline. |
1st June 2012, 03:43 PM | #443 |
Under the Amazing One's Wing
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,546
|
For the purpose of this thread, 1a below applies (from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/conscious)
No, I don't agree that we are electricity. Electricity can be present that is not conscious, and a conscious machine can, in principle, be made of non-electric substrates, like brass and steel, legos, tinkertoys, light, marbles, or hydraulics. If you think it can't, explain why.
Quote:
|
1st June 2012, 03:43 PM | #444 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,211
|
This is slightly off topic, but your post reminded me of a very interesting conversation between Neil De Grasse (badass) Tyson and Richard Dawkins. You can youtube the hour and a half long discusion by searching youtube for "the poetry of science" Here is the text of the conversation, which ends with Tyson sharing an anecdote about dreams, altered states of consciousness and creativity: Tyson: The language of the universe, which we call mathematics; maths has an unreasonable utility in the universe as we just invented it out of our heads. You don’t discover maths under a rock. Yet it empowers us to provide accurate predictions about the universe. And what results from this is that over time as a scientist, you learn to abandon your senses, as they can fool you into thinking something is true when its not. You use your tools to do the measuring and say ok, thats the reality. Then you make a mathematical model of that, which you can manipulate, logically (because maths is all about the logical extension of one point to another) and then you can make new discoveries about the world. No longer are you justified in saying “that idea in science is not true because it doesn’t make sense”. Forget your senses. Who cares about your senses. As you are growing up you are assembling a rule book for how nature works on the macroscopic world. The microscope takes you down smaller, the telescope takes you bigger, and each scale has its own laws of physics that manifest themselves in those regimes that you have no life experience in recognising. So its maths that allows you to take these incremental steps beyond the capacity of your senses, and perhaps even the capacity of your mind. Dawkins: Yes good point. And I've noticed that at some point when you become so used to doing the mathematics it becomes kind of intuitive, like i'm told that pilots that have flown planes for very long end up feeling the wings of the plane as if they were part of their own body. Tyson: Is this a common sensory occurrence? Dawkins: Yes I think it is, its a common thing, it think its a common thing when people get skilled at using micro manipulators where they are using their hands, and whats actually going on is only tiny minuscule movements, going on as if under the microscope. Tyson: So it becomes their hands? Dawkins: yes Tyson: I see, so the plane becomes the pilot, or the pilot becomes the plane. Dawkins: Indeed, just as you said, the telescope is an extension of the eye. Tyson: I knew this person, my advisor in grad school, and I spoke to him one morning and he was doing research on star clusters that have these huge orbits around the centre of the galaxy, and he had this dream where where he was one of these clusters and he was orbiting the centre of the galaxy. And I thought this was so cool, as, if you start becoming your cosmic dream; I want to have those dreams! as you start to think more creatively about what might be discovered. |
1st June 2012, 03:45 PM | #445 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,946
|
I have read that paper of his many times. That isn't the crazy part. The orchOR jibberish is actually plausible ( although it is easy to find refutations in actual peer reviewed journals, in particular that the scale on which Penrose posits orchOR takes place is something like more than 10 orders of magnitude too small to statistically affect neuron behavior ).
The crazy part is that he thinks we NEED orchOR, or anything like it. He has a very old standing argument for that, called the lucas-penrose argument. It basically goes like this: Human mathematicians can think of things that Penrose can't imagine could be arrived at via an algorithm, therefore there must be some non-algorithmic component to our thought process. Like I said, that is not only wrong, but it doesn't even matter, since his orchOR idea doesn't escape the limits of computability. |
1st June 2012, 03:47 PM | #446 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,211
|
Nothing you said bears any relevance to anything I've read in recent literature proposed by Penrose et al. I note you dodged my main point. I've just spent a fair while scouring journals for this as you asked, and not found anything. So I say again: |
1st June 2012, 08:29 PM | #447 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 20,121
|
well, yes. I did use the term differently.
It sure doesn't mean I don't study the processes. I'm the one suggesting this radical exploitation, and it comes from study. If you're curious, I'd expound on the idea, if we can get past semantics. Here's an example: Chickens can have their roosts in a green house. The plants and the chickens compliment each other, and the chickens lay more eggs in winter in a warmer coop. When the green house gets uncomfortably warm, the chickens will exit it, through a vent that they gladly open, with no training. They go outside. When it begins to get cold, they go back in, and close that vent...with no training. Yes, the chickens are dumb. But we are smart. Or is it just me? |
2nd June 2012, 12:22 AM | #448 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
2nd June 2012, 05:18 AM | #449 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,874
|
|
__________________
"Anyway, why is a finely-engineered machine of wire and silicon less likely to be conscious than two pounds of warm meat?" Pixy Misa "We live in a world of more and more information and less and less meaning" Jean Baudrillard http://bokashiworld.wordpress.com/ |
|
2nd June 2012, 06:05 AM | #450 |
Under the Amazing One's Wing
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,546
|
I read Penrose's original book on quantum consciousness years ago and used to think it was very, very interesting. Now it just reads like argument from ignorance, e.g., he doesn't know how the brain can do what it does, so it must use quantum mechanics. He also seems to say, "the brain is mysterious, and quantum mechanics is also mysterious, so their must be a connection." Unfortunately, he has no evidence the brain uses quantum mechanic computers. Sorry, Roger.
|
2nd June 2012, 06:35 AM | #451 |
Persnickety Insect
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,343
|
Taking that paper by itself, we would reach the inescapable conclusion that Penrose knows less than nothing about consciousness, brain function, and computation. He bases his position on the following premises, three entirely false and two entirely irrelevant.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In his defense, he presents only speculation. No evidence whatsoever. F- And I'm being generous. |
__________________
Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO |
|
2nd June 2012, 07:08 AM | #452 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 20,121
|
|
2nd June 2012, 07:14 AM | #453 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,874
|
I agree with Pixy on this one. Penrose is trying too hard to explain something without sufficient evidence. Then again so is Dennett.
|
__________________
"Anyway, why is a finely-engineered machine of wire and silicon less likely to be conscious than two pounds of warm meat?" Pixy Misa "We live in a world of more and more information and less and less meaning" Jean Baudrillard http://bokashiworld.wordpress.com/ |
|
2nd June 2012, 11:02 AM | #454 |
Persnickety Insect
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,343
|
There's a difference, though. Where Penrose is offering an implausible explanation for something that's not in evidence, Dennett is providing a plausible explanation for something that is in evidence - and which other philosophers (Chalmers, Searle, Jackson) have asserted could not be explained at all.
While that doesn't establish Dennett's thesis as correct, he is at least advancing the discourse, which Penrose ain't. |
__________________
Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO |
|
2nd June 2012, 11:27 AM | #455 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,946
|
I actually think Dennett does more harm than good now. For that matter, so does anyone who tries to come up with theories about human consciousness that aren't literally grounded in human neural network topology.
The "multiple drafts" model is plausible but unfortunately it just doesn't fit well with the way the brain is connected. The more research I look at, the more it is apparent that it just isn't a great model. Global workspace isn't much better, but it is better nonetheless. You can sorta-kinda shoehorn global workspace into something like a brain topography. But even in that case it is better to just look at the neural networks and bypass the "conceptual model" entirely. At this point I wish we could leave the speculative philosophy behind and just focus on the straight up science. We know enough to do that, the only excuse not to is if someone doesn't want to take the trouble to educate themselves on what is known about neural networks. I wouldn't accuse Dennett and Baars and Blackmore and the like of being lazy when it comes to the hard science, but I kind of feel that they are, a bit. They are happy to look at research but I don't get the sense that they could whip up a neural network program that could control a robot, for example. However, Penrose is in an entirely different league. If Dennett is lazy, Penrose is outright ignorant. |
2nd June 2012, 12:41 PM | #456 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,211
|
The top = neurons To bottom = large scale structure models of the universe. Non universality derived self similarity, anyone? Take 60mg dimethyltryptamine, watch physical reality dissolve, and then come back and scientifically rationalize everything you experienced. Be sure to include the exact % of trancendance you experienced. It will be something like this. |
2nd June 2012, 12:47 PM | #457 |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,189
|
choices
too few choices....my mind is reeling.
|
2nd June 2012, 02:25 PM | #458 |
New York Skeptic
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 13,714
|
|
2nd June 2012, 04:40 PM | #459 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 20,121
|
Two vents; in and out. The out stays open until they come back in, which is more like a pet door.
Fox trouble. I've always had a couple of dogs when having any farm animals, but I had a coop that was quite complex to enter and exit. The boss chicken would quickly learn the new obstacle, as I would add them one at a time. It proved to be too complicated for predators. Except snakes, I must add. And they would get the occasional egg. I think it was worth it, for the rodent work these snakes would do. |
2nd June 2012, 05:21 PM | #460 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,211
|
|
2nd June 2012, 05:47 PM | #461 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,211
|
|
2nd June 2012, 08:30 PM | #462 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 20,121
|
Yeah dude. They're all stone freaks.
Plus, evidently there are mental icons that precede language, and we share a lot of them, and there seems to be a stash of them that get tapped into during the plus 4 or 5 moments. Bliss is identical for anyone I've ever witnessed experiencing it, including myself. So is the minus 4 or 5 experience of abject terror. Both are totally engaging and leave no room for voicing thoughts or reporting back to one's self regarding the experience as it transpires. I wrote a poem in an attempt to describe my only experience of pure bliss. It was a long time ago. It was a lot of work; not the poem; the bliss. If I wanted to annoy people, I'd post the poem. I use to study consciousness through observation of my own, which I believe is the same as any one's. Sitting in silence, for endless hours, observing the dissipation of thought; the sub-units of thought; the ripples caused by the slight effort of not voicing thought or its sub-units, until, eventually, the egg cracked and "I" was no more. Just pure awareness, which came with a flood of orgasmic golden, liquid love-light, silly as that sounds. I remained in that state for 6 hours or so. It didn't matter much that I couldn't maintain it forever. What mattered to me was discovering its existence, and knowing that it was there, for all of us. This probably doesn't sound very scientific, though it was pure observation. How else do we study consciousness? (braced for the assault, and willing.) |
2nd June 2012, 09:14 PM | #463 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,946
|
|
2nd June 2012, 09:31 PM | #464 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 20,121
|
That's a cheap shot. Or maybe not.
Are no experiences profound, even though sane and scientific types often speak of the profoundness of certain altered states of consciousness? Yet, you may have a point. Snark free, even. I'm not sure. You'd need to ask yourself. A description of extreme nausea, I suppose, would be fairly similar amongst various experiencers of nausea. Same with orgasm, or extraordinary pain. Yet, and yet... |
2nd June 2012, 10:35 PM | #465 |
Under the Amazing One's Wing
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,546
|
"Profoundness" is just another state of the brain, like needing to pee, laughter, the smell of sulfur, infatuation for Justin Beiber, or deja vous (see Dennett's "The Magic of Consciousnes" for his take on deja vous).
Don't forget that the modules of the brain responsible for these things appeared and then were preserved because the genes responsible for them tended, on balance, to be passed on. The process gave us imperfect modules that are well known to misfire often. You can find profundity in a bathroom tile that's slightly skewed. It does not mean the tile is profound. It just means that for some insignificant reason, it FEELS profound. Our brains are klugy misfiring messes, and becoming comfortable with that reveals more about how the universe works than we'll learn from following all our random feelings of profundity. Our profoundness module probably evolved millions of years ago to help our ancestors find food, mates, and reason to care for offspring. That's why the module is there. Pattern recognition works for those goals most of the time. That we can find a similar pattern in microscopic images of neural networks and arrangement of the cosmos can certainly trigger the profoundness module, but the module evolved imperfectly, and is likely to misfire and give us worthless leads. All (probably misfiring) feelings of profundity aside, there's no evidence consciousness is anywhere in the universe but in the brain. |
2nd June 2012, 11:38 PM | #466 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,874
|
|
__________________
"Anyway, why is a finely-engineered machine of wire and silicon less likely to be conscious than two pounds of warm meat?" Pixy Misa "We live in a world of more and more information and less and less meaning" Jean Baudrillard http://bokashiworld.wordpress.com/ |
|
2nd June 2012, 11:47 PM | #467 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,874
|
|
__________________
"Anyway, why is a finely-engineered machine of wire and silicon less likely to be conscious than two pounds of warm meat?" Pixy Misa "We live in a world of more and more information and less and less meaning" Jean Baudrillard http://bokashiworld.wordpress.com/ |
|
3rd June 2012, 12:26 AM | #468 |
Under the Amazing One's Wing
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,546
|
I only ask why a computer can't be conscious to challenge believers in the magic bean. Maybe you're confusing me with someone else.
I was talking about that universal cosmic consciousness nonsense. There's also no evidence a computer cannot be conscious. In fact, a full simulation of a brain would undoubtedly be conscious. Why wouldn't it be? ...plus I was speaking in the present tense. In the future, we may find evidence of consciousness somewhere outside the brain, but seeing similarity between images of neurons and the cosmos does not constitute evidence of cosmic consciousness. |
3rd June 2012, 08:24 AM | #469 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,211
|
This doesn't hold water to me. There's a difference between poking some-ones closed eyeball with a finger, poking them with a red hot poker or poking them with an acid coated toothpick. Totally different classes of drugs (tryptamines, ergoline derivatives, opioid analgesics, NMDA agonists) each with completely different Ki value binding affinities to totally different receptors each seem to produce extremely similar effects when +5 states are reached. Thus such similarities can not be explained by typical neurochemistry. |
3rd June 2012, 09:05 AM | #470 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,211
|
|
3rd June 2012, 09:21 AM | #471 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 20,121
|
Yeah, i wanted to suggest that the profundity of observing a bathroom tile might not be in the same category as a full-blown dmt experience. Thank god Zeuzzz is here, to take the heat for me.
|
3rd June 2012, 11:39 AM | #472 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,985
|
|
3rd June 2012, 12:34 PM | #473 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,211
|
|
3rd June 2012, 01:27 PM | #474 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,985
|
|
3rd June 2012, 02:38 PM | #475 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,211
|
|
3rd June 2012, 02:40 PM | #476 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
3rd June 2012, 02:59 PM | #477 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,211
|
|
3rd June 2012, 05:48 PM | #478 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,946
|
I know, that's why I brought it up.
Go ahead and press on your eyeball. Seriously. If one didn't know how the functron filters in the first stages of the visual processing system worked, they might try to attribute the similarity in patterns that *all people* see to some universal consciousness. However once you know how those work, it is obvious that "oh, they are just malfunctioning" and that causes the patterns and furthermore that since the circuit is the same in all humans, so is the pattern. |
3rd June 2012, 06:15 PM | #479 |
New York Skeptic
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 13,714
|
|
4th June 2012, 01:38 AM | #480 |
Under the Amazing One's Wing
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,546
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|