My take on why indeed the study of consciousness may not be as simple - Page 5

!Kaggen · 7th November 2009, 12:50 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

I assume you are withdrawing your silly question about brain cells.

I will only note that you cannot answer the question.

!Kaggen · 7th November 2009, 12:53 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

To achieve flight there needs be a number of variables. If and only if all of the variables are met can flight happen (aka emerge).

Lets move onto the next question then.

How many variables are needed for flight to 'emerge'?

Wudang · 7th November 2009, 01:55 AM

http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Aeronautic...otes/index.htm

Fill your boots. Note btw the absence of QM

Robin · 7th November 2009, 03:21 AM

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

I am not convinced of your proof.

It was your own reasoning, with "matter" and "physical" swapped for "consciousness" and "think". You seemed to think you had made some point because you had a circular definition.

I was pointing out that circular definitions are easy to come by.

You said you would like to see me find a circular definition for matter. I did. That is all.

Quote:

In any case I was not suggesting that matter or thinking would create themselves if they were defined self-referentially. You suggested this and I suggested you try prove it.

I don't recall asking anything of the sort. I think you will have to quote that part.

Quote:

What I did say was that what I myself create, is self-referential.

Your original claim was that consciousness creates consciousness as I seem to recall.

Quote:

I gave you a dictionary definition of think and conscious as a guide and proceeded to explain why you saying you think and me saying I think is not equivalent. The point being to show you how only I can create and address my consciousness.

Only you can address your consciousness - but you cannot create it.

Recall when I asked you how you created your consciousness you were unable to answer.

Quote:

I would rather be polite at this stage.

Glass houses.

westprog · 7th November 2009, 03:26 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

A semantical argument. Digital has a real and fundamental meaning when it comes to data transmission. That all underlying medium is analog does not obviate that meaning. Digital transmission has high fidelity (not perfect). Analog, by comparison, does not.

The only meaning "digital" has in the real world is in terms of the interpretation we place on the information received. The electrical processes on an analogue telephone line are exactly the same as when converted to ADSL. It's just a matter of decoding at each end.

And the quality of reproduction of either analogue or digital is entirely dependent on the precision of the equipment. In any case, we see and hear the information in an entirely analogue way, because our senses don't work on digital.

Robin · 7th November 2009, 03:28 AM

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

Hmm.. not and no better are not equivalent. This is shifting the goalposts.

You were drawing metaphysical conclusions on the basis of "thinking"

I said thinking was no better a metaphysical starting point than matter.

I thought you understood that matter was not a metaphysical starting point at all, so it was a genuine misunderstanding.

But at least we can now agree that thinking is no basis for drawing metaphysical conclusions.

westprog · 7th November 2009, 03:31 AM

Originally Posted by Robin

Assuming of course that nature is not in fact digital.

Feynman once conjectured that nature might be fundamentally discrete. If that was the case then digital devices would be an emulation of digital on an emulation of analog.

That might well be the case - but it doesn't change how the digital devices actually work. The digital nature of the computer is still not the same as the digital nature of the universe.

westprog · 7th November 2009, 03:33 AM

Originally Posted by Robin

This is true too and more to the point. A digital system is no less a digital system because it is built on an analog system.

All real-world digital devices are built on an analogue system. When we call something a digital device, that's the unspoken assumption.

westprog · 7th November 2009, 03:36 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

As a former and ardent duaalist I have to ask. Pray tell what process could it be then?

Now we come to the mysticism at the heart of Strong AI.

westprog · 7th November 2009, 03:42 AM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

No. Again, we know quite a lot about consciousness (memory, arousal, proprioception, etc.) and it's all based on the neuroscience model. The field is advancing pretty quickly these days. . . in neuroscience, not in physics, and certainly not from QM.

I'm not dissing physics. It's just that the collection of properties or functions we call consciousness is not the subject of physics. (No more than auto repair and house construction are!)

When you say that something is not the subject of physics, then you are saying that you don't understand what is going on. Auto repair and house construction are understood in physical terms, and indeed the people who design houses and cars, and the materials used to make houses and cars, have to be very familiar with the physical principles involved. There are no mysterious, mystical "emergent properties" when it comes to houses and cars. We can follow what is going on from top to bottom. A brick or a brake has its engineering properties because of its physical characteristics.

When someone says that something is not in the purview of physics, that's the same as saying that it is not a matter of science. Neurological investigation is an important first step in the understanding of consciousness, but if there is no physical theory, there is no real understanding.

westprog · 7th November 2009, 04:08 AM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

No. There is no such thing as the understanding of a car on an atomic level.

You can learn about atoms by studying things at the atomic level, but not cars.

The properties of a car (something you can sit in, the ability to transport you and other loads from place to place, etc.) do not emerge at the atomic level.

However, they emerge because of the behaviour of the components of the car at an atomic level, and the connection between the behaviour of the atoms and the macro-scale behaviour of the car is well understood. When we say that we understand how a car works - how the ability to transport you from place to place emerges - we mean that we understand how the atomic level processes produce the large-scale processes. That is what physical understanding means.

Quote:

Again, this statement:

Is not true. In the car analogy, consciousness is a higher level emergent property (or rather a collection of properties) like the ability of a car to transport you from one place to another. You can't analyze either of these properties at the atomic level.

We both know that's not the case. We don't know how the atoms in the brain produce consciousness, which is in any case poorly defined. We know exactly how the atoms in the car produce motion, comfy seats, well balanced MP3 sound systems and a pleasant interior temperature. There's a direct link between the micro and the macro level, every stage of which is understood.

It's because we have such a strong understanding of the physical processes involved that we can, if we wish, produce electric cars, hybrid cars, electronic engine management systems, kinetic energy recovery braking systems and so on. It is because we don't have any understanding of how the atoms of the brain produce consciousness that we are totally unable to produce anything apart from a human brain that has the consciousness property.

Quote:

That's not true. Again, most auto engineers, designers and mechanics do not know QM, and yet we do actually know how a car works. The properties that we're concerned with in higher levels are not the properties of subatomic particles.

Not it's not. It's saying that we can understand these properties without worrying about individual atoms much less subatomic particles. In fact, it says that atomic theory and subatomic particles doesn't tell us anything about how cars work.

You don't think that the theory of combustion tells us anything about how cars work? What a superficial level of understanding that would be. Put in the petrol, switch on and go. Why does burning fuel make the wheels go round? Gee, who cares?

In fact, if you don't understand how cars work on a physical level, you might be able to drive 'em, repair 'em and maybe even build 'em, but you won't be able to design 'em.

Quote:

I've already given you several examples of this. In neuroscience, specific components of consciousness (memory, proprioception, systems of arousal, etc.) have been studied in some detail and have led to practical applications, especially in medicine.

I'm not arguing about the difference between experimental vs theoretical work. I'm arguing that neuroscience (which is both theory and experiment) has led us to theories of consciousness that have led to very practical applications.

Those "theories" are at the same level as the mechanic who knows how to set the timing or tighten up the brakes. There is no deep insight to be found in a purely neurological approach. It's a necessary first step, but it won't tell us "how the brain works".

Quote:

QM (which is also theoretical and experimental) has not. Applying QM to consciousness has only resulted in the publication of New Agey books that compare subatomic particles to the mind.

That's obviously because we don't have a decent theory yet. In fact, we have no physical theory of consciousness. We do have a complete physical theory of how cars work.

Robin · 7th November 2009, 04:29 AM

Originally Posted by westprog

That might well be the case - but it doesn't change how the digital devices actually work. The digital nature of the computer is still not the same as the digital nature of the universe.

Nor does the analog basis of digital devices change how they work.

Robin · 7th November 2009, 04:31 AM

Originally Posted by westprog

All real-world digital devices are built on an analogue system.

Where did I say otherwise???

I said the fact did not make them any less digital.

westprog · 7th November 2009, 05:01 AM

Originally Posted by Robin

Nor does the analog basis of digital devices change how they work.

Originally Posted by Robin

Where did I say otherwise???

I said the fact did not make them any less digital.

In fact it does. There is no physical distinction between a digital and an analogue device. The difference is purely operational. A computer is a digital device because we choose to use it as such.

The reason this is an important distinction is because there's an apparent belief that digital devices are distinct in some sense from analogue devices. They aren't. We can treat digital devices as analogue, or analogue as digital, depending on our requirements.

Dancing David · 7th November 2009, 05:20 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Transistors (digital switches) are mechanical devices composed of semiconducting material. IOW: They are an analog medium. There is no such thing as a metaphysical switch.

Sure, that I know, the voltage potential gate is analog, but the effect is digital as far as bit switching. The gate is open or closed, the bit is on/off. The bit is not 53%.

Dancing David · 7th November 2009, 05:23 AM

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

Oh, God, please don't bring up switching...

Sorry, is this like the 'evolution is random' thing?

Dancing David · 7th November 2009, 05:32 AM

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

If you like. The difference for me is that for thinking I cannot see how I can experience its appearance without producing it myself.

Now taht is the appearance, it could be a Brain In Vat situation, it could be that thoughts are partly determined or mostly determined causaly and that they are an appearance of interactive free will, when in fact they are not.

My point is that 'there appear to be the experiences we labels as thought', but the usage of the word 'myself' is yet undefined.

Now if you use 'meslef' to denote the 'apparently organic body which I reference as mine' then I can agree to that.

But the appearnce is that we are organice beings and that the brains of those being have neural nets which generate patterns of interaction we call thought.

That requires a lot more than phenomenolgy, in phenomenology we could be BIVs.

Quote:

What are these other experiences, if I may ask?

They are myriad and multiple, i would list auditory cognition and visual cognition. then there are a host of other processes. there is nothing as pure as the concept "I had a thought."

Quote:

No, but that's the only experience I have had (consistent and repeatable

)

Thoughts yes, not thinking.

Yes but that is the point, we have to couch it carefully, especially in these discussions, there is an appearance of *I think*.

Dancing David · 7th November 2009, 05:38 AM

Originally Posted by westprog

In fact it does. There is no physical distinction between a digital and an analogue device. The difference is purely operational.

Sorry, I don't get that either.

The usage is what determines the nature of the computation. Justa s in defintions of analog and digital.

There are no absolutes, the usage of the machine is digital, that is the part that matters, the parts are use digitally whatever the ultimate construction.

Why would it matter? (Most importantly)

Quote:

A computer is a digital device because we choose to use it as such.

And a screw driver or cal phone can be used as a hammer.

Your point being?

Quote:

The reason this is an important distinction is because there's an apparent belief that digital devices are distinct in some sense from analogue devices.

Nope, that is your straw man, they are digital because taht is the way they process the 'material' we give them. You are imposing these absolutes where none exist.

I could sue my desktop computer as a hammer, that does not mean that it becomes a hammaer.

Quote:

They aren't. We can treat digital devices as analogue, or analogue as digital, depending on our requirements.

Excuse me, the process is digital, there is no meaning in the usage of the term otherwise.

You can use analog processes as well to generate analog computing algorithims, we don't.

You are making a distinction based upon some absolute, the process is digital.

That is physical process. It does not happen in some Kantian metaspace.

Dancing David · 7th November 2009, 05:40 AM

Originally Posted by Robin

Nor does the analog basis of digital devices change how they work.

Originally Posted by Robin

Where did I say otherwise???

I said the fact did not make them any less digital.

Exactly.

Dancing David · 7th November 2009, 05:41 AM

Originally Posted by westprog

That's obviously because we don't have a decent theory yet. In fact, we have no physical theory of consciousness. We do have a complete physical theory of how cars work.

Argument of the gaps, we do not have a complete understanding of QM at all, it is still a useful theory, as are the theories of neurons and neural nets.

Dancing David · 7th November 2009, 05:43 AM

Originally Posted by westprog

That might well be the case - but it doesn't change how the digital devices actually work. The digital nature of the computer is still not the same as the digital nature of the universe.

Now that is just silly, there is no 'digital nature of the universe', that and all of it is semantic labeling.

cyborg · 7th November 2009, 06:08 AM

Originally Posted by westprog

The reason this is an important distinction is because there's an apparent belief that digital devices are distinct in some sense from analogue devices. They aren't. We can treat digital devices as analogue, or analogue as digital, depending on our requirements.

Yes. I can treat my computer as a large paperweight if I want to.

Now - how is this at all relevant to anything again?

UndercoverElephant · 7th November 2009, 06:18 AM

Originally Posted by Robin

If you expected people to understand your original claim about the association between science and metaphysical assumptions, why do you think those same people would fail to understand the counter claim that scientists have for well over a century, carefully examined these assumptions and largely disavowed them?

The arguments I make tend to be neo-Kantian. They are addressed to people who are still engaged in pre-Kantian debates about ontology and epistemology (not that most of them realise this). You are talking about philosophical arguments that occured after the period of philosophical history which Kant triggered. In other words, people have to understand the issues raised by Kant and the people who immediately followed him before they can understand the relevance of Wittgenstein, Neurath and logical positivism.

UndercoverElephant · 7th November 2009, 06:23 AM

Originally Posted by Robin

I don't know why you would even want to get to Nietzsche and the ability to get to post-modernism is hardly a recommendation.

One doesn't end up at Nietzsche or post-modernism because one wants to. One just ends up there because there is nowhere-else left to go.

Quote:

But your claim seems to be that the thing metaphysics can do that science can't is to get from one philosopher to another.

I think science can operate quite effectively without having to do that.

Sure it can, provided we understand what "science" means and what its limitations are. Quite a lot of people here do not understand this. They think that understanding science - as in understanding things Darwinism or Newtonian mechanics - means that they automatically have a good grasp of how science fits into a broader spectrum of knowledge and enquiry. This is not the case. Some of the most scientifically-literate people have the biggest blind spots when it comes to acknowledging what science can't do.

UndercoverElephant · 7th November 2009, 06:27 AM

Originally Posted by Hux

Exactly. It was and is never going to be simple. It might be one of those things we never qute get a handle on but Im not one of those who advocate there are some things beyond the realm of human understanding.

All I have seen above is a bunch of people trying to score points off one another, pedantic and unhelpful. This is probably why no one has got to the bottom of the question yet.

No-one has got to the bottom of the question because nobody has worked out what question they are actually trying to ask. I'm afraid it really does come down to how you define the word "consciousness". If it is not possible to come to an agreement about exactly what is meant by that word and exactly what question we are trying to ask about the thing to which it refers then we stand zero chance of reaching a sensible answer.

Garbage in, garbage out.

UndercoverElephant · 7th November 2009, 06:29 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

A semantical argument.

What, precisely, do you think is not a "semantical argument"?

"Just a semantic argument" should only be used to refer to an argument where the only serious point of contention is what a specific word means. For example, if a person disagrees that sex with a consenting pre-teen should be refered to as "rape" but accepts that it should still be illegal then it really is a merely semantic argument. You, on the other hand, continually try to claim "it's just semantics", even when there is a very real argument going on underneath the semantics. You use it as a means of avoiding the real underlying argument.

Arguments about consciousness end up being arguments about the definition of words NOT because there is a genuine disagreement about what the relevant words mean but because it is impossible to resolve the dispute simply by agreeing to a new and clearer set of definitions. It is not possible to come to agreement precisely because there is a genuine underlying logical problem (or set of logical problems) which certain people try to hide by providing definitions of words which are designed to avoid acknowledging a real, non-semantical problem. In this specific case, they try to avoid being forced to acknowledge a genuine difficulty in studying consciousness by attempting to define the word "consciousness" to mean something which can concievably be tacked by science rather than defining it to mean what most people mean when they raise the problem in the first place. This is a classic example of putting cart before horse. It's a bit like trying to define "evolution" to mean "God's method of creating life on Earth" and then wondering why people refuse to accept the definition. Is that a merely semantic argument? No, it is an abuse of language resulting from an attempt to hide from an unwanted problem and the attempted mis-definition has no power to solve the actual problem. What it does do is allow the person trying misdefine the word to avoid having to think too hard about the unwanted problem.

Can I suggest a test? If you can re-arrange the meanings of the words so that the point of contention/disagreement disappears, then it is merely a semantic argument. If you can't, then it isn't.

cyborg · 7th November 2009, 06:45 AM

Originally Posted by UndercoverElephant

No-one has got to the bottom of the question because nobody has worked out what question they are actually trying to ask. I'm afraid it really does come down to how you define the word "consciousness".

Right - there is a reason why that was my first post here.

So fire away.

rocketdodger · 7th November 2009, 08:20 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

As a former and ardent duaalist I have to ask. Pray tell what process could it be then?

I was being sarcastic.

rocketdodger · 7th November 2009, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by westprog

Now we come to the mysticism at the heart of Strong AI.

I don't find it surprising that when I use sarcasm to regurgitate westprog's argument, westprog realizes the absurdity of it and calls it mysticism.

Fail.

UndercoverElephant · 7th November 2009, 08:31 AM

Originally Posted by cyborg

Right - there is a reason why that was my first post here.

So fire away.

It wasn't me who mentioned the word "consciousness". Ask the person who asked the original question. You should already know my answer to this: I think we depend on a subjective definition of this word - we have to define it privately in terms of our own experience of reality. The next question is: can we use a privately-defined word in a public discussion?

westprog · 7th November 2009, 08:47 AM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Sure, that I know, the voltage potential gate is analog, but the effect is digital as far as bit switching. The gate is open or closed, the bit is on/off. The bit is not 53%.

But the bit is just an idea that we have. The physics of it is not digital.

rocketdodger · 7th November 2009, 08:48 AM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Sorry, is this like the 'evolution is random' thing?

Pretty much. Here is a summary of about 1000 pages of posts:

Westprog thinks that consciousness can't be a physical process because all physical processes are equivalent and thus everything would be conscious -- an absurdity, according to westprog.

Westprog's proof of this is that he/she thinks the behavior necessary for computation -- switching -- is constantly exhibited by all existing physical entities, from the smallest particle to the entire universe. To show this, westprog is more than happy to come up with elaborate scenarios where any entity might indeed act as a switch (and he/she considers the fact that all these scenarios are entirely independent of each other to be beside the point, because after all its not like the switches involved in computing have to work together or anything). Thus, according to westprog, everything computes: there is no distinction between a pile of rocks, a pile of computer parts (or a bowl of soup -- yes, we actually argued about this) and a working computer.

And when anyone points out the obvious distinctions, westprog claims that those only exist in the minds of humans, and anyway computers are built by humans so somehow they can't be used in arguments about human consciousness because to do so would be circular, or something. Furthermore westprog thinks that all the stuff that exhibits such obvious distinctions that we could use in arguments that would not be circular, or something, -- such as all other life on the planet Earth -- is irrelevant (his/her repeated dodging of questions along those lines is equivalent to an admission of as much). Finally, when a clever observer points out that a rock doesn't compute when it is sitting in the sun, westprog intelligently replies that it is only not computing according to a human observer (then we are back to the whole "human centric" thing) and in fact we can come up with some definition of "computing" that such a rock sitting in the sun will satisfy. Again, the fact that definitions are completely changed to suit the specific case in question is irrelevant to westprog, because things like consistency should not get in the way of a good argument.

EDIT: Oh, and westprog also claims that a glass of pure water contains a virtual machine + software, equivalent to the central dogma of molecular biology (DNA + transcription, etc). He/she has yet to explain that one, since the thread died before yy2bggggs could get anything resembling an argument from him/her.

JoeTheJuggler · 7th November 2009, 08:56 AM

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

How many organized brain cells till consciousness emerges?

I don't think it's a function purely of number.

For example, you might ask how many bricks make a house (and the emergent properties of a house)? It's not a matter of number (though it does take more than "some") as much as it is how they're organized to do certain functions.

(ETA: It also depends on how you define "consciousness". As I've been saying that's a term that refers to many different properties/functions.)

But again, back to the point of this thread, do you suppose QM or neuroscience will answer this question?

cyborg · 7th November 2009, 09:06 AM

Originally Posted by UndercoverElephant

we have to define it privately in terms of our own experience of reality.

That's just a cop out.

Quote:

The next question is: can we use a privately-defined word in a public discussion?

We do so all the time.

cyborg · 7th November 2009, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by westprog

But the bit is just an idea that we have. The physics of it is not digital.

It's irrelevant - the system behaves as if it is digital because that is how system is setup.

Water can pass through the dam or it cannot. The individual motion of the water molecules doesn't really matter.

JoeTheJuggler · 7th November 2009, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by westprog

When you say that something is not the subject of physics, then you are saying that you don't understand what is going on.

That's not true.

When I say consciousness is not the subject of physics I mean exactly what I said: consciousness is not the subject of physics.

Go to any reputable university and there is not one single physics department class on consciousness (or any of the collection of properties/functions that comprise consciousness like memory, proprioception, etc.)

westprog · 7th November 2009, 09:15 AM

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

Pretty much. Here is a summary of about 1000 pages of posts:

Westprog thinks that consciousness can't be a physical process because all physical processes are equivalent and thus everything would be conscious -- an absurdity, according to westprog.

Could you be any more confused about what I'm saying? You've managed to miss an astonishing number of points in a single sentence. Good lord.
It's not as if I haven't explained this point at great length.

I have always insisted that any scientific investigation of consciousness has to start with a physical theory. "All physical processes are equivalent"? Where do you get this? It's the proponents of Strong AI that insist that consciousness is independent of any given physical process, and that it can be produced by electricity, mechanics or punched cards. I've made the point that one cannot assume that an entirely different physical process cannot be simply assumed to produce the same result.

The context is the Strong AI claim that computing is something that produces consciousness, or can produce it, independently of the physical medium, but at the same time the insistence that computing only happens either in the brain or in human-made computers, but never in any way in natural phenomena.

Quote:

Westprog's proof of this is that he/she thinks the behavior necessary for computation -- switching

Note the switch between "consciousness" and "computation" as if they were the same thing, when this is precisely the issue at dispute.

This kind of hamfisted switching around, using an argument about one thing as evidence for another, is all too typical of the discussions on this subject.

Quote:

-- is constantly exhibited by all existing physical entities, from the smallest particle to the entire universe. To show this, westprog is more than happy to come up with elaborate scenarios where any entity might indeed act as a switch (and he/she considers the fact that all these scenarios are entirely independent of each other to be beside the point, because after all its not like the switches involved in computing have to work together or anything). Thus, according to westprog, everything computes: there is no distinction between a pile of rocks, a pile of computer parts (or a bowl of soup -- yes, we actually argued about this) and a working computer.

And when anyone points out the obvious distinctions,

FSV of "point out", as in claim "well, it's obvious".

Quote:

westprog claims that those only exist in the minds of humans, and anyway computers are built by humans so somehow they can't be used in arguments about human consciousness because to do so would be circular, or something.

Yeah, "or something".

Quote:

Furthermore westprog thinks that all the stuff that exhibits such obvious distinctions that we could use in arguments that would not be circular, or something, -- such as all other life on the planet Earth -- is irrelevant (his/her repeated dodging of questions along those lines is equivalent to an admission of as much). Finally, when a clever observer points out that a rock doesn't compute when it is sitting in the sun, westprog intelligently replies that it is only not computing according to a human observer (then we are back to the whole "human centric" thing) and in fact we can come up with some definition of "computing" that such a rock sitting in the sun will satisfy. Again, the fact that definitions are completely changed to suit the specific case in question is irrelevant to westprog, because things like consistency should not get in the way of a good argument.

EDIT: Oh, and westprog also claims that a glass of pure water contains a virtual machine + software, equivalent to the central dogma of molecular biology (DNA + transcription, etc). He/she has yet to explain that one, since the thread died before yy2bggggs could get anything resembling an argument from him/her.

The thread died waiting for anyone to come up with a physical description of computing. There was a fair split between people who said it wasn't necessary, while not actually accepting that this implied that computing could not therefore be considered a physical process, and people who made some attempts to define computing in a physical sense but were unable to do so. Either there was a perfectly good physical theory, or it was a total irrelevance.

I had no particular wish to revisit this, but the alternative seems to be to have Rocketdodger give his misunderstood version.

UndercoverElephant · 7th November 2009, 09:18 AM

Originally Posted by cyborg

That's just a cop out.

No it isn't. It's one of the central questions discussed by Wittgenstein in what is widely considered to be the most important philosophical book of the 20th century.

Quote:

We do so all the time.

Can you provide some examples?

westprog · 7th November 2009, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

That's not true.

When I say consciousness is not the subject of physics I mean exactly what I said: consciousness is not the subject of physics.

Go to any reputable university and there is not one single physics department class on consciousness

Which is what I already said. I'm also insisting that this necessarily implies that consciousness is not scientifically understood.

True, there are no physics classes on auto engineering, but there are classes on all the processes that scientifically describe auto engineering.

Quote:

(or any of the collection of properties/functions that comprise consciousness like memory, proprioception, etc.)

Already by stating that consciousness is comprised of a number of listed properties the question is being massively begged.

RandFan · 7th November 2009, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

I will only note that you cannot answer the question.

Then you are being dishonest. You asked a question about how many brain cells are needed for consciousness to emerge. I asked how many atoms are needed for flight to emerge.

Neuroscience does not hold that the only thing necessary for consciousness is brain cells.
Likewise, I do not hold that the only thing necessary for flight are wings.

So the question still stands.

7th November 2009, 12:50 AM	#161
!Kaggen Muse Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Home Posts: 890	Originally Posted by RandFan I assume you are withdrawing your silly question about brain cells. I will only note that you cannot answer the question.
	__________________ the source

7th November 2009, 12:53 AM	#162
!Kaggen Muse Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Home Posts: 890	Originally Posted by RandFan To achieve flight there needs be a number of variables. If and only if all of the variables are met can flight happen (aka emerge). Lets move onto the next question then. How many variables are needed for flight to 'emerge'?
	__________________ the source

7th November 2009, 01:55 AM	#163
Wudang BOFH Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Sheffield Posts: 4,190	http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Aeronautic...otes/index.htm Fill your boots. Note btw the absence of QM
	__________________ Aphorism: Subjects most likely to be declared inappropriate for humor are the ones most in need of it.

7th November 2009, 03:21 AM	#164
Robin Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,897	Originally Posted by !Kaggen I am not convinced of your proof. It was your own reasoning, with "matter" and "physical" swapped for "consciousness" and "think". You seemed to think you had made some point because you had a circular definition. I was pointing out that circular definitions are easy to come by. You said you would like to see me find a circular definition for matter. I did. That is all. Quote: In any case I was not suggesting that matter or thinking would create themselves if they were defined self-referentially. You suggested this and I suggested you try prove it. I don't recall asking anything of the sort. I think you will have to quote that part. Quote: What I did say was that what I myself create, is self-referential. Your original claim was that consciousness creates consciousness as I seem to recall. Quote: I gave you a dictionary definition of think and conscious as a guide and proceeded to explain why you saying you think and me saying I think is not equivalent. The point being to show you how only I can create and address my consciousness. Only you can address your consciousness - but you cannot create it. Recall when I asked you how you created your consciousness you were unable to answer. Quote: I would rather be polite at this stage. Glass houses.
Robin Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,897	__________________ If any one alters the definitions, I cannot pretend to argue with him, until I know the meaning he assigns to these terms. - David Hume 1711-1776 Last edited by Robin; 7th November 2009 at 03:24 AM.

7th November 2009, 03:26 AM	#165
westprog Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 3,421	Originally Posted by RandFan A semantical argument. Digital has a real and fundamental meaning when it comes to data transmission. That all underlying medium is analog does not obviate that meaning. Digital transmission has high fidelity (not perfect). Analog, by comparison, does not. The only meaning "digital" has in the real world is in terms of the interpretation we place on the information received. The electrical processes on an analogue telephone line are exactly the same as when converted to ADSL. It's just a matter of decoding at each end. And the quality of reproduction of either analogue or digital is entirely dependent on the precision of the equipment. In any case, we see and hear the information in an entirely analogue way, because our senses don't work on digital.
westprog Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 3,421	__________________ "The use of anthropomorphic terms when dealing with computer systems is a sign of professional immaturity" -Edsger Dijkstra

7th November 2009, 03:28 AM	#166
Robin Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,897	Originally Posted by !Kaggen Hmm.. not and no better are not equivalent. This is shifting the goalposts. You were drawing metaphysical conclusions on the basis of "thinking" I said thinking was no better a metaphysical starting point than matter. I thought you understood that matter was not a metaphysical starting point at all, so it was a genuine misunderstanding. But at least we can now agree that thinking is no basis for drawing metaphysical conclusions.
Robin Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,897	__________________ If any one alters the definitions, I cannot pretend to argue with him, until I know the meaning he assigns to these terms. - David Hume 1711-1776

7th November 2009, 03:31 AM	#167
westprog Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 3,421	Originally Posted by Robin Assuming of course that nature is not in fact digital. Feynman once conjectured that nature might be fundamentally discrete. If that was the case then digital devices would be an emulation of digital on an emulation of analog. That might well be the case - but it doesn't change how the digital devices actually work. The digital nature of the computer is still not the same as the digital nature of the universe.
westprog Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 3,421	__________________ "The use of anthropomorphic terms when dealing with computer systems is a sign of professional immaturity" -Edsger Dijkstra

7th November 2009, 03:33 AM	#168
westprog Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 3,421	Originally Posted by Robin This is true too and more to the point. A digital system is no less a digital system because it is built on an analog system. All real-world digital devices are built on an analogue system. When we call something a digital device, that's the unspoken assumption.
westprog Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 3,421	__________________ "The use of anthropomorphic terms when dealing with computer systems is a sign of professional immaturity" -Edsger Dijkstra

7th November 2009, 03:36 AM	#169
westprog Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 3,421	Originally Posted by RandFan As a former and ardent duaalist I have to ask. Pray tell what process could it be then? Now we come to the mysticism at the heart of Strong AI.
westprog Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 3,421	__________________ "The use of anthropomorphic terms when dealing with computer systems is a sign of professional immaturity" -Edsger Dijkstra

7th November 2009, 03:42 AM	#170
westprog Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 3,421	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler No. Again, we know quite a lot about consciousness (memory, arousal, proprioception, etc.) and it's all based on the neuroscience model. The field is advancing pretty quickly these days. . . in neuroscience, not in physics, and certainly not from QM. I'm not dissing physics. It's just that the collection of properties or functions we call consciousness is not the subject of physics. (No more than auto repair and house construction are!) When you say that something is not the subject of physics, then you are saying that you don't understand what is going on. Auto repair and house construction are understood in physical terms, and indeed the people who design houses and cars, and the materials used to make houses and cars, have to be very familiar with the physical principles involved. There are no mysterious, mystical "emergent properties" when it comes to houses and cars. We can follow what is going on from top to bottom. A brick or a brake has its engineering properties because of its physical characteristics. When someone says that something is not in the purview of physics, that's the same as saying that it is not a matter of science. Neurological investigation is an important first step in the understanding of consciousness, but if there is no physical theory, there is no real understanding.
westprog Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 3,421	__________________ "The use of anthropomorphic terms when dealing with computer systems is a sign of professional immaturity" -Edsger Dijkstra

7th November 2009, 04:08 AM	#171
westprog Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 3,421	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler No. There is no such thing as the understanding of a car on an atomic level. You can learn about atoms by studying things at the atomic level, but not cars. The properties of a car (something you can sit in, the ability to transport you and other loads from place to place, etc.) do not emerge at the atomic level. However, they emerge because of the behaviour of the components of the car at an atomic level, and the connection between the behaviour of the atoms and the macro-scale behaviour of the car is well understood. When we say that we understand how a car works - how the ability to transport you from place to place emerges - we mean that we understand how the atomic level processes produce the large-scale processes. That is what physical understanding means. Quote: Again, this statement: Is not true. In the car analogy, consciousness is a higher level emergent property (or rather a collection of properties) like the ability of a car to transport you from one place to another. You can't analyze either of these properties at the atomic level. We both know that's not the case. We don't know how the atoms in the brain produce consciousness, which is in any case poorly defined. We know exactly how the atoms in the car produce motion, comfy seats, well balanced MP3 sound systems and a pleasant interior temperature. There's a direct link between the micro and the macro level, every stage of which is understood. It's because we have such a strong understanding of the physical processes involved that we can, if we wish, produce electric cars, hybrid cars, electronic engine management systems, kinetic energy recovery braking systems and so on. It is because we don't have any understanding of how the atoms of the brain produce consciousness that we are totally unable to produce anything apart from a human brain that has the consciousness property. Quote: That's not true. Again, most auto engineers, designers and mechanics do not know QM, and yet we do actually know how a car works. The properties that we're concerned with in higher levels are not the properties of subatomic particles. Not it's not. It's saying that we can understand these properties without worrying about individual atoms much less subatomic particles. In fact, it says that atomic theory and subatomic particles doesn't tell us anything about how cars work. You don't think that the theory of combustion tells us anything about how cars work? What a superficial level of understanding that would be. Put in the petrol, switch on and go. Why does burning fuel make the wheels go round? Gee, who cares? In fact, if you don't understand how cars work on a physical level, you might be able to drive 'em, repair 'em and maybe even build 'em, but you won't be able to design 'em. Quote: I've already given you several examples of this. In neuroscience, specific components of consciousness (memory, proprioception, systems of arousal, etc.) have been studied in some detail and have led to practical applications, especially in medicine. I'm not arguing about the difference between experimental vs theoretical work. I'm arguing that neuroscience (which is both theory and experiment) has led us to theories of consciousness that have led to very practical applications. Those "theories" are at the same level as the mechanic who knows how to set the timing or tighten up the brakes. There is no deep insight to be found in a purely neurological approach. It's a necessary first step, but it won't tell us "how the brain works". Quote: QM (which is also theoretical and experimental) has not. Applying QM to consciousness has only resulted in the publication of New Agey books that compare subatomic particles to the mind. That's obviously because we don't have a decent theory yet. In fact, we have no physical theory of consciousness. We do have a complete physical theory of how cars work.
westprog Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 3,421	__________________ "The use of anthropomorphic terms when dealing with computer systems is a sign of professional immaturity" -Edsger Dijkstra

7th November 2009, 04:29 AM	#172
Robin Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,897	Originally Posted by westprog That might well be the case - but it doesn't change how the digital devices actually work. The digital nature of the computer is still not the same as the digital nature of the universe. Nor does the analog basis of digital devices change how they work.
Robin Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,897	__________________ If any one alters the definitions, I cannot pretend to argue with him, until I know the meaning he assigns to these terms. - David Hume 1711-1776

7th November 2009, 04:31 AM	#173
Robin Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,897	Originally Posted by westprog All real-world digital devices are built on an analogue system. Where did I say otherwise??? I said the fact did not make them any less digital.
Robin Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,897	__________________ If any one alters the definitions, I cannot pretend to argue with him, until I know the meaning he assigns to these terms. - David Hume 1711-1776

7th November 2009, 05:01 AM	#174
westprog Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 3,421	Originally Posted by Robin Nor does the analog basis of digital devices change how they work. Originally Posted by Robin Where did I say otherwise??? I said the fact did not make them any less digital. In fact it does. There is no physical distinction between a digital and an analogue device. The difference is purely operational. A computer is a digital device because we choose to use it as such. The reason this is an important distinction is because there's an apparent belief that digital devices are distinct in some sense from analogue devices. They aren't. We can treat digital devices as analogue, or analogue as digital, depending on our requirements.
westprog Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 3,421	__________________ "The use of anthropomorphic terms when dealing with computer systems is a sign of professional immaturity" -Edsger Dijkstra

7th November 2009, 05:20 AM	#175
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 17,332	Originally Posted by RandFan Transistors (digital switches) are mechanical devices composed of semiconducting material. IOW: They are an analog medium. There is no such thing as a metaphysical switch. Sure, that I know, the voltage potential gate is analog, but the effect is digital as far as bit switching. The gate is open or closed, the bit is on/off. The bit is not 53%.
	__________________ I’m not ready to make nice, I’m not ready to back down, I’m still mad as hell and I don’t have time to go round and round and round, It’s too late to make it right I probably wouldn’t if I could, ‘Cause I’m mad as hell, Can’t bring myself to do what it is you think I should- Dixie Chicks

7th November 2009, 05:23 AM	#176
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 17,332	Originally Posted by rocketdodger Oh, God, please don't bring up switching... Sorry, is this like the 'evolution is random' thing?
	__________________ I’m not ready to make nice, I’m not ready to back down, I’m still mad as hell and I don’t have time to go round and round and round, It’s too late to make it right I probably wouldn’t if I could, ‘Cause I’m mad as hell, Can’t bring myself to do what it is you think I should- Dixie Chicks

7th November 2009, 05:32 AM	#177
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 17,332	Originally Posted by !Kaggen If you like. The difference for me is that for thinking I cannot see how I can experience its appearance without producing it myself. Now taht is the appearance, it could be a Brain In Vat situation, it could be that thoughts are partly determined or mostly determined causaly and that they are an appearance of interactive free will, when in fact they are not. My point is that 'there appear to be the experiences we labels as thought', but the usage of the word 'myself' is yet undefined. Now if you use 'meslef' to denote the 'apparently organic body which I reference as mine' then I can agree to that. But the appearnce is that we are organice beings and that the brains of those being have neural nets which generate patterns of interaction we call thought. That requires a lot more than phenomenolgy, in phenomenology we could be BIVs. Quote: What are these other experiences, if I may ask? They are myriad and multiple, i would list auditory cognition and visual cognition. then there are a host of other processes. there is nothing as pure as the concept "I had a thought." Quote: No, but that's the only experience I have had (consistent and repeatable ) Thoughts yes, not thinking. Yes but that is the point, we have to couch it carefully, especially in these discussions, there is an appearance of I think.
	__________________ I’m not ready to make nice, I’m not ready to back down, I’m still mad as hell and I don’t have time to go round and round and round, It’s too late to make it right I probably wouldn’t if I could, ‘Cause I’m mad as hell, Can’t bring myself to do what it is you think I should- Dixie Chicks

7th November 2009, 05:38 AM	#178
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 17,332	Originally Posted by westprog In fact it does. There is no physical distinction between a digital and an analogue device. The difference is purely operational. Sorry, I don't get that either. The usage is what determines the nature of the computation. Justa s in defintions of analog and digital. There are no absolutes, the usage of the machine is digital, that is the part that matters, the parts are use digitally whatever the ultimate construction. Why would it matter? (Most importantly) Quote: A computer is a digital device because we choose to use it as such. And a screw driver or cal phone can be used as a hammer. Your point being? Quote: The reason this is an important distinction is because there's an apparent belief that digital devices are distinct in some sense from analogue devices. Nope, that is your straw man, they are digital because taht is the way they process the 'material' we give them. You are imposing these absolutes where none exist. I could sue my desktop computer as a hammer, that does not mean that it becomes a hammaer. Quote: They aren't. We can treat digital devices as analogue, or analogue as digital, depending on our requirements. Excuse me, the process is digital, there is no meaning in the usage of the term otherwise. You can use analog processes as well to generate analog computing algorithims, we don't. You are making a distinction based upon some absolute, the process is digital. That is physical process. It does not happen in some Kantian metaspace.
	__________________ I’m not ready to make nice, I’m not ready to back down, I’m still mad as hell and I don’t have time to go round and round and round, It’s too late to make it right I probably wouldn’t if I could, ‘Cause I’m mad as hell, Can’t bring myself to do what it is you think I should- Dixie Chicks Last edited by Dancing David; 7th November 2009 at 05:39 AM.

7th November 2009, 05:40 AM	#179
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 17,332	Originally Posted by Robin Nor does the analog basis of digital devices change how they work. Originally Posted by Robin Where did I say otherwise??? I said the fact did not make them any less digital. Exactly.
	__________________ I’m not ready to make nice, I’m not ready to back down, I’m still mad as hell and I don’t have time to go round and round and round, It’s too late to make it right I probably wouldn’t if I could, ‘Cause I’m mad as hell, Can’t bring myself to do what it is you think I should- Dixie Chicks

7th November 2009, 05:41 AM	#180
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 17,332	Originally Posted by westprog That's obviously because we don't have a decent theory yet. In fact, we have no physical theory of consciousness. We do have a complete physical theory of how cars work. Argument of the gaps, we do not have a complete understanding of QM at all, it is still a useful theory, as are the theories of neurons and neural nets.
	__________________ I’m not ready to make nice, I’m not ready to back down, I’m still mad as hell and I don’t have time to go round and round and round, It’s too late to make it right I probably wouldn’t if I could, ‘Cause I’m mad as hell, Can’t bring myself to do what it is you think I should- Dixie Chicks

7th November 2009, 05:43 AM	#181
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 17,332	Originally Posted by westprog That might well be the case - but it doesn't change how the digital devices actually work. The digital nature of the computer is still not the same as the digital nature of the universe. Now that is just silly, there is no 'digital nature of the universe', that and all of it is semantic labeling.
	__________________ I’m not ready to make nice, I’m not ready to back down, I’m still mad as hell and I don’t have time to go round and round and round, It’s too late to make it right I probably wouldn’t if I could, ‘Cause I’m mad as hell, Can’t bring myself to do what it is you think I should- Dixie Chicks

7th November 2009, 06:08 AM	#182
cyborg deus ex machina Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 4,351	Originally Posted by westprog The reason this is an important distinction is because there's an apparent belief that digital devices are distinct in some sense from analogue devices. They aren't. We can treat digital devices as analogue, or analogue as digital, depending on our requirements. Yes. I can treat my computer as a large paperweight if I want to. Now - how is this at all relevant to anything again?
cyborg deus ex machina Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 4,351	__________________ The phrase deus ex machina (literally "god out of a machine") describes an unexpected, artificial, or improbable character, device, or event introduced suddenly in a work of fiction or drama to resolve a situation or untangle a plot...

7th November 2009, 06:18 AM	#183
UndercoverElephant Pachyderm of a Thousand Faces Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Brighton, Sussex, England Posts: 7,316	Originally Posted by Robin If you expected people to understand your original claim about the association between science and metaphysical assumptions, why do you think those same people would fail to understand the counter claim that scientists have for well over a century, carefully examined these assumptions and largely disavowed them? The arguments I make tend to be neo-Kantian. They are addressed to people who are still engaged in pre-Kantian debates about ontology and epistemology (not that most of them realise this). You are talking about philosophical arguments that occured after the period of philosophical history which Kant triggered. In other words, people have to understand the issues raised by Kant and the people who immediately followed him before they can understand the relevance of Wittgenstein, Neurath and logical positivism.
	__________________ "I am real!" said Alice, and began to cry. "You won't make yourself a bit realler by crying," Tweedledee remarked: "there's nothing to cry about."

7th November 2009, 06:23 AM	#184
UndercoverElephant Pachyderm of a Thousand Faces Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Brighton, Sussex, England Posts: 7,316	Originally Posted by Robin I don't know why you would even want to get to Nietzsche and the ability to get to post-modernism is hardly a recommendation. One doesn't end up at Nietzsche or post-modernism because one wants to. One just ends up there because there is nowhere-else left to go. Quote: But your claim seems to be that the thing metaphysics can do that science can't is to get from one philosopher to another. I think science can operate quite effectively without having to do that. Sure it can, provided we understand what "science" means and what its limitations are. Quite a lot of people here do not understand this. They think that understanding science - as in understanding things Darwinism or Newtonian mechanics - means that they automatically have a good grasp of how science fits into a broader spectrum of knowledge and enquiry. This is not the case. Some of the most scientifically-literate people have the biggest blind spots when it comes to acknowledging what science can't do.
	__________________ "I am real!" said Alice, and began to cry. "You won't make yourself a bit realler by crying," Tweedledee remarked: "there's nothing to cry about."

7th November 2009, 06:27 AM	#185
UndercoverElephant Pachyderm of a Thousand Faces Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Brighton, Sussex, England Posts: 7,316	Originally Posted by Hux Exactly. It was and is never going to be simple. It might be one of those things we never qute get a handle on but Im not one of those who advocate there are some things beyond the realm of human understanding. All I have seen above is a bunch of people trying to score points off one another, pedantic and unhelpful. This is probably why no one has got to the bottom of the question yet. No-one has got to the bottom of the question because nobody has worked out what question they are actually trying to ask. I'm afraid it really does come down to how you define the word "consciousness". If it is not possible to come to an agreement about exactly what is meant by that word and exactly what question we are trying to ask about the thing to which it refers then we stand zero chance of reaching a sensible answer. Garbage in, garbage out.
	__________________ "I am real!" said Alice, and began to cry. "You won't make yourself a bit realler by crying," Tweedledee remarked: "there's nothing to cry about." Last edited by UndercoverElephant; 7th November 2009 at 06:37 AM.

7th November 2009, 06:29 AM	#186
UndercoverElephant Pachyderm of a Thousand Faces Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Brighton, Sussex, England Posts: 7,316	Originally Posted by RandFan A semantical argument. What, precisely, do you think is not a "semantical argument"? "Just a semantic argument" should only be used to refer to an argument where the only serious point of contention is what a specific word means. For example, if a person disagrees that sex with a consenting pre-teen should be refered to as "rape" but accepts that it should still be illegal then it really is a merely semantic argument. You, on the other hand, continually try to claim "it's just semantics", even when there is a very real argument going on underneath the semantics. You use it as a means of avoiding the real underlying argument. Arguments about consciousness end up being arguments about the definition of words NOT because there is a genuine disagreement about what the relevant words mean but because it is impossible to resolve the dispute simply by agreeing to a new and clearer set of definitions. It is not possible to come to agreement precisely because there is a genuine underlying logical problem (or set of logical problems) which certain people try to hide by providing definitions of words which are designed to avoid acknowledging a real, non-semantical problem. In this specific case, they try to avoid being forced to acknowledge a genuine difficulty in studying consciousness by attempting to define the word "consciousness" to mean something which can concievably be tacked by science rather than defining it to mean what most people mean when they raise the problem in the first place. This is a classic example of putting cart before horse. It's a bit like trying to define "evolution" to mean "God's method of creating life on Earth" and then wondering why people refuse to accept the definition. Is that a merely semantic argument? No, it is an abuse of language resulting from an attempt to hide from an unwanted problem and the attempted mis-definition has no power to solve the actual problem. What it does do is allow the person trying misdefine the word to avoid having to think too hard about the unwanted problem. Can I suggest a test? If you can re-arrange the meanings of the words so that the point of contention/disagreement disappears, then it is merely a semantic argument. If you can't, then it isn't.
	__________________ "I am real!" said Alice, and began to cry. "You won't make yourself a bit realler by crying," Tweedledee remarked: "there's nothing to cry about." Last edited by UndercoverElephant; 7th November 2009 at 06:48 AM.

7th November 2009, 06:45 AM	#187
cyborg deus ex machina Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 4,351	Originally Posted by UndercoverElephant No-one has got to the bottom of the question because nobody has worked out what question they are actually trying to ask. I'm afraid it really does come down to how you define the word "consciousness". Right - there is a reason why that was my first post here. So fire away.
cyborg deus ex machina Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 4,351	__________________ The phrase deus ex machina (literally "god out of a machine") describes an unexpected, artificial, or improbable character, device, or event introduced suddenly in a work of fiction or drama to resolve a situation or untangle a plot...

7th November 2009, 08:20 AM	#188
rocketdodger Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Hyperion Posts: 4,213	Originally Posted by RandFan As a former and ardent duaalist I have to ask. Pray tell what process could it be then? I was being sarcastic.

7th November 2009, 08:25 AM	#189
rocketdodger Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Hyperion Posts: 4,213	Originally Posted by westprog Now we come to the mysticism at the heart of Strong AI. I don't find it surprising that when I use sarcasm to regurgitate westprog's argument, westprog realizes the absurdity of it and calls it mysticism. Fail.

7th November 2009, 08:31 AM	#190
UndercoverElephant Pachyderm of a Thousand Faces Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Brighton, Sussex, England Posts: 7,316	Originally Posted by cyborg Right - there is a reason why that was my first post here. So fire away. It wasn't me who mentioned the word "consciousness". Ask the person who asked the original question. You should already know my answer to this: I think we depend on a subjective definition of this word - we have to define it privately in terms of our own experience of reality. The next question is: can we use a privately-defined word in a public discussion?
	__________________ "I am real!" said Alice, and began to cry. "You won't make yourself a bit realler by crying," Tweedledee remarked: "there's nothing to cry about."

7th November 2009, 08:47 AM	#191
westprog Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 3,421	Originally Posted by Dancing David Sure, that I know, the voltage potential gate is analog, but the effect is digital as far as bit switching. The gate is open or closed, the bit is on/off. The bit is not 53%. But the bit is just an idea that we have. The physics of it is not digital.
westprog Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 3,421	__________________ "The use of anthropomorphic terms when dealing with computer systems is a sign of professional immaturity" -Edsger Dijkstra

7th November 2009, 08:48 AM	#192
rocketdodger Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Hyperion Posts: 4,213	Originally Posted by Dancing David Sorry, is this like the 'evolution is random' thing? Pretty much. Here is a summary of about 1000 pages of posts: Westprog thinks that consciousness can't be a physical process because all physical processes are equivalent and thus everything would be conscious -- an absurdity, according to westprog. Westprog's proof of this is that he/she thinks the behavior necessary for computation -- switching -- is constantly exhibited by all existing physical entities, from the smallest particle to the entire universe. To show this, westprog is more than happy to come up with elaborate scenarios where any entity might indeed act as a switch (and he/she considers the fact that all these scenarios are entirely independent of each other to be beside the point, because after all its not like the switches involved in computing have to work together or anything). Thus, according to westprog, everything computes: there is no distinction between a pile of rocks, a pile of computer parts (or a bowl of soup -- yes, we actually argued about this) and a working computer. And when anyone points out the obvious distinctions, westprog claims that those only exist in the minds of humans, and anyway computers are built by humans so somehow they can't be used in arguments about human consciousness because to do so would be circular, or something. Furthermore westprog thinks that all the stuff that exhibits such obvious distinctions that we could use in arguments that would not be circular, or something, -- such as all other life on the planet Earth -- is irrelevant (his/her repeated dodging of questions along those lines is equivalent to an admission of as much). Finally, when a clever observer points out that a rock doesn't compute when it is sitting in the sun, westprog intelligently replies that it is only not computing according to a human observer (then we are back to the whole "human centric" thing) and in fact we can come up with some definition of "computing" that such a rock sitting in the sun will satisfy. Again, the fact that definitions are completely changed to suit the specific case in question is irrelevant to westprog, because things like consistency should not get in the way of a good argument. EDIT: Oh, and westprog also claims that a glass of pure water contains a virtual machine + software, equivalent to the central dogma of molecular biology (DNA + transcription, etc). He/she has yet to explain that one, since the thread died before yy2bggggs could get anything resembling an argument from him/her.
	Last edited by rocketdodger; 7th November 2009 at 08:51 AM.

7th November 2009, 08:56 AM	#193
JoeTheJuggler Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 9,526	Originally Posted by !Kaggen How many organized brain cells till consciousness emerges? I don't think it's a function purely of number. For example, you might ask how many bricks make a house (and the emergent properties of a house)? It's not a matter of number (though it does take more than "some") as much as it is how they're organized to do certain functions. (ETA: It also depends on how you define "consciousness". As I've been saying that's a term that refers to many different properties/functions.) But again, back to the point of this thread, do you suppose QM or neuroscience will answer this question?
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons Last edited by JoeTheJuggler; 7th November 2009 at 08:57 AM.

7th November 2009, 09:06 AM	#194
cyborg deus ex machina Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 4,351	Originally Posted by UndercoverElephant we have to define it privately in terms of our own experience of reality. That's just a cop out. Quote: The next question is: can we use a privately-defined word in a public discussion? We do so all the time.
cyborg deus ex machina Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 4,351	__________________ The phrase deus ex machina (literally "god out of a machine") describes an unexpected, artificial, or improbable character, device, or event introduced suddenly in a work of fiction or drama to resolve a situation or untangle a plot...

7th November 2009, 09:08 AM	#195
cyborg deus ex machina Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 4,351	Originally Posted by westprog But the bit is just an idea that we have. The physics of it is not digital. It's irrelevant - the system behaves as if it is digital because that is how system is setup. Water can pass through the dam or it cannot. The individual motion of the water molecules doesn't really matter.
cyborg deus ex machina Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 4,351	__________________ The phrase deus ex machina (literally "god out of a machine") describes an unexpected, artificial, or improbable character, device, or event introduced suddenly in a work of fiction or drama to resolve a situation or untangle a plot...