|
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 |
18th July 2012, 04:30 AM | #2201 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
|
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar |
|
18th July 2012, 04:32 AM | #2202 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
And how would you know this, how are you defining consciousness?
It is possible that there are little monkeys on motor scooters instead of electrons as well, but there are reasons to believe that is not a valid theory. Magical thinking about consciousness? A dog is conscious, does this apply to dogs and hamsters or just humans? |
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar |
|
18th July 2012, 04:55 AM | #2204 |
Persnickety Insect
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,343
|
I have three replies to this:
1. No it's not. 2. You can't define such a thing. 3. You can't propose a mechanism for such a thing. What you're talking about is known as a hypercomputerWP. They're very interesting, and entirely impossible. |
__________________
Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO |
|
18th July 2012, 06:41 AM | #2205 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
18th July 2012, 06:44 AM | #2206 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
18th July 2012, 07:04 AM | #2207 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,703
|
…except the as yet undefined fact of consciousness itself. Pixy will, I'm sure, take grave exception to this conclusion as well....convinced as he is that various of his computerized contraptions have achieved the quality known as consciousness without resort to biochemistry of any kind (elctro-chemistry perhaps....is that related?). That is what’s referred to as a category error. Consciousness is consciousness. Biochemistry is biochemistry. The relationship between the two has yet to be understood. A comparison could be made to physics. There are no events in biochemistry that are not physics. That particular relationship is well understood. The equivalent consciousness / biochemical relationship barely exists even as a question….and this fact is acknowledged by just about any neuro-biologist currently working in the area. A dog is conscious ???? Where has this fact been definitively established? From what I understand…consciousness itself has yet to achieve anything remotely resembling a universally accepted definition so it is likely premature to assign the category to dogs or anything else. |
18th July 2012, 08:00 AM | #2208 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,864
|
|
__________________
Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice... |
|
18th July 2012, 08:11 AM | #2209 |
Persnickety Insect
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,343
|
If you can't define it, how do you know? And if others have defined it, how can it be undefined?
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO |
|
18th July 2012, 08:36 AM | #2210 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
1) How is consciousness undefined ?
2) Aren't you just projecting, here ? 3) Assuming it is undefined, how does that make it not biological ?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
18th July 2012, 08:47 AM | #2211 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,864
|
I did; the question you actually asked was answered. The question below is different.
Quote:
It seems to me that until we understand more of the function and capabilities of the complex neural networks in the brain, the reasonable view is that they account for consciousness and self-awareness by computational means, be it Turing Complete or super-Turing. It should go without saying that it is a provisional explanation, as for all scientific explanations. |
__________________
Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice... |
|
18th July 2012, 08:57 AM | #2212 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 7,259
|
|
__________________
Steen -- Jack of all trades - master of none! |
|
18th July 2012, 08:57 AM | #2213 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
Wouldn't that just redefine the Turing model ?
|
18th July 2012, 09:01 AM | #2214 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,703
|
.…and, apparently, the folks behind this statement who can reasonably claim to represent a significant cross-section of the cog-sci community. "We have no idea how consciousness emerges from the physical activity of the brain and we do not know whether consciousness can emerge from non-biological systems, such as computers... At this point the reader will expect to find a careful and precise definition of consciousness. You will be disappointed. Consciousness has not yet become a scientific term that can be defined in this way. Currently we all use the term consciousness in many different and often ambiguous ways. Precise definitions of different aspects of consciousness will emerge ... but to make precise definitions at this stage is premature." There are, quite obviously, fundamental disagreements. Which is the point. Dennet didn’t ‘explain’ it, he simply tried to (…explain it away…). Hofstadter tried as well. There is as yet no consensus on the issue, as the above statement clearly indicates. The achievement of an explicit adjudication of the condition of human consciousness would be news multiple orders of magnitude greater than the Higgs Boson. Short of discovering evidence of God, such a thing would likely be regarded as the most significant discovery in the history of history. A Nobel would be a formality. I have yet to notice an event of this magnitude. Have you? Y’know Belz….there was a brief period after Tensor gave you that unexpected compliment that you started sounding like someone other than Pixy. That period appears to have expired. I guess imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. |
18th July 2012, 09:03 AM | #2215 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,703
|
"We have no idea how consciousness emerges from the physical activity of the brain and we do not know whether consciousness can emerge from non-biological systems, such as computers... At this point the reader will expect to find a careful and precise definition of consciousness. You will be disappointed. Consciousness has not yet become a scientific term that can be defined in this way. Currently we all use the term consciousness in many different and often ambiguous ways. Precise definitions of different aspects of consciousness will emerge ... but to make precise definitions at this stage is premature." |
18th July 2012, 09:11 AM | #2216 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,946
|
Yes, correct.
But in the case of a five-cornered-square, is that mathematically false, or logically false? Or is it an impossibility? And what is the distinction? The statement "a square has five corners" is false. You could say a mathematical formulation of that statement is a falsehood. The proof isn't consistent. Whatever. But the statement "I am imagining a square with five corners," is not necessarily false, because it includes non-trivial references to "I" and "imagining," the definition of which is variable and vague. In particular, a full expansion of the formal defintion of "imagining" will implicitly define what the meaning of the statement is. If it turns out that what I mean by "square with five corners" is actually a pentagon, then my statement is true in a sense, because I am indeed imagining a pentagon. So I would instead in that case say that a five-cornered-square is a mathematical impossibility, not merely a mathematical falsehood, so whatever I am imagining, it definitely isn't that. If that makes any sense.... |
18th July 2012, 09:14 AM | #2217 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
18th July 2012, 09:26 AM | #2218 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,946
|
Yes.
However, this has nothing to do with consciousness -- it is impossible to even define a physical analog to a computation or cognitive task that can't be achieved by any theoretical Turing complete computing system. Meaning, if you have a system of particles, they ain't ever gonna do any hypercomputation. And before you go all Penrose on me, you should know that quantum computing is not hypercomputing. It is understood that if a quantum computer is ever realized, it will also be merely Turing equivalent, no more. |
18th July 2012, 09:40 AM | #2219 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
If it is undefined then how do you refer to it?
Quote:
Quote:
It is not a category error, it is a flase dichotomy on your part. And more sophistry.
Quote:
So where is this consciousness without biochemistry?
Quote:
Quote:
So where is consciousness without biochemistry, with the invisible pink unicorn in my garage?
Quote:
Or just one person? Really, a lack of perfect understanding does not mean a lack of some understanding. Or are you a 'brain as TV receiver of consciousness' type of person. Where are the hordes of neurologists saying this, or is this where you will find the equivalent of climate change deniers and deniers of evolution. Put you cards on the table.
Quote:
A lack of complete understanding is not a lack of understanding, so who made these claims, exactly? Where and when?
Quote:
What you mean is that you want consciousness defined in some special way but are a sophist at heart and can't present direct evidence of your weak argument. I will mark that down as special pleading, magical thinking and ignorance. We are in the SMT forum, so the standard common definition of medical consciousness would apply. Not some Vague Problem of Consciousness.
Quote:
There is a common definition, just not a magical one.
Quote:
|
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar |
|
18th July 2012, 09:41 AM | #2220 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
|
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar |
|
18th July 2012, 09:44 AM | #2221 |
New York Skeptic
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 13,714
|
|
18th July 2012, 09:47 AM | #2222 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
Oh, quotes out of context that you don't give a citation for are just that.
Quotes out of context.
Quote:
Where is this a common belief held by neuro-biologists or will you admit that you are ignorant?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Do you know anything about neurology and medicine?
Quote:
Quote:
I guess you don't have any data, evidence or an argument, when did Dennet become the Pope of Neuro-biology? |
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar |
|
18th July 2012, 09:49 AM | #2223 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
More citations out of context.
More argument from ignorance, neurologists use the term consciousness everyday. Global warming denial is not pretty when dressed up as consciousness denial. So all the *********** professionals who use the term consciousness explicitly defined everyday don't matter compered to a quote out of context. |
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar |
|
18th July 2012, 10:16 AM | #2224 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,874
|
DD take a chill pill or something your getting a bit too excited
|
__________________
"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/ |
|
18th July 2012, 11:12 AM | #2225 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,864
|
|
__________________
Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice... |
|
18th July 2012, 11:17 AM | #2226 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
Quote:
The claim was made that we can't scientifically prove what red is I pointed out that color blind tests do just that and you questioned that by saying that the tests only tested human perception of red so I asked you if you thought red was something physical, at that point you seemed to lose the point of the discussion. |
18th July 2012, 11:20 AM | #2227 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,864
|
|
__________________
Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice... |
|
18th July 2012, 11:23 AM | #2228 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
18th July 2012, 11:28 AM | #2229 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,864
|
I guess it helps to clarify precisely which meaning of 'red' is being used. For example, after-image colours allow one to perceive red (the sensation of redness) without the retina being stimulated by light primarily in the red frequencies of the spectrum (look at a bright green object for a while, then at a plain white surface).
|
__________________
Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice... |
|
18th July 2012, 01:22 PM | #2230 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
Whatever, it was still a stupid statement, the term consciousness is used everyday by professionals, including neurologists, the basis of consciousness is biological, it is biochemistry.
But the people who ascribe some foolish magical property to consciousness are still foolish. There is no dragon hiding under the carpet, there is nothing magic about consciousness, it is a process of the brain, it is biochemistry. It is not absolutely understood but there is no freaking mystery either. If someone wants to make up **** I will call them on it, Dennett included. I suppose these people are all idiots? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?t...0consciousness Maybe some of these are: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?t...0consciousness There are plenty of other professionals using the term consciousness all the freaking time, sp just because some foolish person wants to redefine it as some ineffable magic quality and say there is no common consensus in its usage does not mean that they are right. "Consciousness' is a set of *********** behaviors, it is not some stupid Kantian meta-state that defies definition. Now if this was in R&P I would ignore and argue with crap like that but in SMT I will attack magical thinking for its muddle headedness. Consciousness it not some entity of magical proportions that defies definition, it is a set of behaviors, and the fact that some people reify is nonsense. There is nothing mysterious about consciousness, it has degrees of being understood but it is not magical and impossible to define. It is defined and used everyday, those who wish to say that it is not need to use another term. |
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar |
|
18th July 2012, 02:04 PM | #2231 |
Under the Amazing One's Wing
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,546
|
Whether or not one can discriminate between two colors is not the same as what those colors actually look like. Maybe it doesn't matter. Different people have different favorite colors, but that might be more because of association than how their color qualia are manifesting for them.
|
18th July 2012, 02:06 PM | #2232 |
Under the Amazing One's Wing
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,546
|
|
18th July 2012, 02:22 PM | #2233 |
Under the Amazing One's Wing
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,546
|
Semantic error. Different definitions of consciousness.
The thread is about the seemingly magic ongoing process of awareness going on in human and, most likely, most vertebrate brains. It's not about the consciousness of a wasp, for example, we'd need to knock out so it'd stop fidgeting during some kind of operation. The difference between an unconscious wasp and a paralyzed wasp would be important because we wouldn't want it to be on attack after an upsetting procedure, but that does not suggest it's consciousness is like a person's or a hedgehog's. |
18th July 2012, 02:24 PM | #2234 |
Under the Amazing One's Wing
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,546
|
If we had a drug that temporarily altered the brain so that nothing at all became remembered, even for a split second, how different would that be from being unconscious, or a p-zombie?
|
18th July 2012, 02:39 PM | #2235 |
New York Skeptic
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 13,714
|
|
18th July 2012, 02:47 PM | #2236 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 20,121
|
Well, various high mucky-mucks of Bhuddism might suggest that such a state would be Nirvana.
Evidently, you need to go through some time with memory and sequence first, so you know what you're getting into. Raw observation is a possibility, with no storing or inner reflection or dialog concerning the perceptions implications. Is there such a thing as anti-magical thinking? Wherein you're so scientific and pragmatic, that the default state is one of rejecting everything that doesn't fit well into your prior understanding? Somewhere between magical and anti-magical thinking, with luck, we'll learn new stuff. We'll be objective, but we won't have to become storm troopers or flower children. From the onset, I thought this thread should have been in R&P. Now, its devolved into petty insults and arrogance, as is often the case amongst all us geniuses. Hippy chicks, under 25 years of age, to my mind, were the pinnacle of human achievement. The flowers were rather tolerable. And you hard science dicks want to wreck that? If you seek biological relevance, sometimes you need to go for a woo ride. |
18th July 2012, 09:51 PM | #2237 |
Persnickety Insect
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,343
|
Yep.
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO |
|
18th July 2012, 11:50 PM | #2239 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,295
|
Has it not dawned on you yet, what is going on here?
Its quite simple, there are a few posters who presume that consciousness can be produced through computation. In opposition to this are a few posters who are pointing out that this presumption cannot at this point be made. Accompanied by a few posters who are not falling into one of these two camps, but taking an interest in points made here and there. No woo anywhere as far as I can see. |
19th July 2012, 12:00 AM | #2240 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,295
|
Exactly, as existing limited finite beings we are not in a position to examine "nothing", or "existence" or how one came out of the other or not.
We are entirely oblivious of the existence upon which our house of cards is balanced. What is fascinating is that we are able to reason, to examine "nothing" and "existence" theoretically and create out of nothing a philosophy of metaphysics. So we can say something about "nothing" after all, unfortunately we have no idea if what we say is correct or pie in the sky. Or if in fact we actually know anything at all. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|