Explain consciousness to the layman.

[punshhh]

Originally Posted by Complexity

Your definition can be sharpened up a bit.


Some conventional definitions of an algorithm include:

• An algorithm is a process the execution of which is clearly specified to the smallest details.
• An algorithm is a sequence of unambiguous instructions of finite length the execution of which is deterministic and will conclude after the execution of a finite number of instructions.
• Any sequence of operations that can be simulated by a Turing-complete system

An algorithm is generally assumed to be deterministic, terminating, and non-quantum unless otherwise stated.

Here are some selections from the first few pages of Hans Hermes' book Enumerability - Decidability - Computability (from which I learned recursive function theory, Turing machines, etc.):

"An algorithm is a general procedure such that for any appropriate question the answer can be obtained by the use of a simple calculation according to a specified method."

"In this book we shall understand by a general procedure a process the execution of which is clearly specified to the smallest details. Among other things this means that we must be able to express the instructions for the execution of the process in finitely long text.
"There is no room left for the practice of the creative imagination of the executer. He has to work slavishly according to the instructions given to him, which determine everything to the smallest detail."

"In this book we want to adopt the convention of calling procedures general procedures only if the way of proceeding is completely unambiguous."

"There are terminating algorithms, whereas other algorithms can be continued as long as we like [e.g. calculating the square root]."

[] added by Complexity.

From the Wikipedia article on 'algorithm':

In mathematics and computer science, an algorithm i/ˈælɡərɪðəm/ (from Algoritmi, the Latin form of Al-Khwārizmī) is a step-by-step procedure for calculations. More precisely, it is an effective method expressed as a finite list[1] of well-defined instructions[2] for calculating a function.[3] Algorithms are used for calculation, data processing, and automated reasoning.
Starting from an initial state and initial input (perhaps empty),[4] the instructions describe a computation that, when executed, will proceed through a finite [5] number of well-defined successive states, eventually producing "output"[6] and terminating at a final ending state. The transition from one state to the next is not necessarily deterministic; some algorithms, known as randomized algorithms, incorporate random input.[7]

While there is no generally accepted formal definition of "algorithm," an informal definition could be "a set of rules that precisely defines a sequence of operations."[11] For some people, a program is only an algorithm if it stops eventually; for others, a program is only an algorithm if it stops before a given number of calculation steps.[12]

Ah, your determinism showing through, I see.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by westprog

Then there needs to be a definition of an algorithm that doesn't reference human beings and their intentions and needs.

There is.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by punshhh

I'm not using logic.

I can tell.

Quote:

I'm pointing out that it appears that living is a requirement for consciousness

How would you know what it "appears", since you have such a small sample ?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by westprog

I'm of the opinion that there is no viable physical description of an algorithm.

Is there a viable physical description of "motion" ?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by punshhh

Ah, your determinism showing through, I see.

And ?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by westprog

Well, you can say that it's something that isn't even defined, so there's no point in arguing about it. Or, you can argue that the basis of consciousness is now well understood, and that it's a matter of a particular type of computer programming.

I don't see how it's possible to maintain both positions, though.

False dichotomy.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by punshhh

I was not making an argument, I was illustrating my point.

I agree with your observations about definitions, however I see little need for precise definitions here. ...snip...

You don't agree with me about definitions else you couldn't go immediately to the following statement:

Originally Posted by punshhh

Life emerged from inanimate matter ...snip....

For that to be a meaningful statement you need to provide what definition you are using for "life". That's half the problem in these types of discussion people simply will not provide their definitions. It's the old idea that describing the problem is half the work needed to solving the problem.

[dlorde]

Originally Posted by punshhh

Your usually air of superiority I see.

Just trying to be honest about my motives. Why not just describe or enumerate the features you were talking about, so your statement can be evaluated? If you can't, you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Quote:

I am suggesting that consciousness is not generated by computation, but rather by life.
...
The presumption here is that such computation if carried out would generate consciousness, I agree if carried out by a living brain.

These two statements are contradictory. You say computation by a living brain can generate consciousness, but consciousness is not generated by computation. What do you really mean? do you think consciousness is result of computation or not?

Quote:

I would define life for these purposes as biological cellular life, as this is what the brain is an aggregation of.

Life is [a certain sort of] life... not much of a definition is it?

If you arbitrarily restrict consciousness to 'life' then arbitrarily define life as the kind of element biological brains are based on, then by definition only biological brains can be conscious. Assertion by arbitrary definition is useless - I'm looking for reasons, explanations.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by punshhh

Your usually air of superiority I see.

I am suggesting that consciousness is not generated by computation, but rather by life. We can go into detail and precise definitions if you like, the result will be the same.

Yes. Please go into detail and precise definitions, because so far as I can see, your statement is complete nonsense.

Quote:

Humanity has worked out how the biological brain works and drawn similarities with computation. The presumption here is that such computation if carried out would generate consciousness, I agree if carried out by a living brain.
It is assumed that it would also generate consciousness in a non-living machine. Can you justify this assumption?

By the power of Church-Turing I compel you!

Quote:

I haven't a clue, nor does, I think, anyone else.

One out of two ain't bad.

Quote:

How is an inanimate machine different from a living brain. Given that it is performing the same computation, mimicking to perfection?

Well one is alive, one is not. The one thats alive knows something, the one that isn't is no more alive than a stone, it is incapable of knowing anything.

Begging the question.

[punshhh]

Originally Posted by Darat

You don't agree with me about definitions else you couldn't go immediately to the following statement:

I do agree, perhaps a consensus on the definition of life can be achieved, which can then be added to the debate ( I won't hold my breath).

Do you agree that life emerged from inanimate matter?

Quote:

For that to be a meaningful statement you need to provide what definition you are using for "life". That's half the problem in these types of discussion people simply will not provide their definitions. It's the old idea that describing the problem is half the work needed to solving the problem.

The problem is the assertion that the running of an "algorithm" results in consciousness.

This is a non sequitur, not least given the problems with a definition of consciousness.

Once this assertion is demonstrated producing a consciousness in the lab I will accept it and que up at the teleportation device.

[yy2bggggs]

Originally Posted by punshhh

I'm not using logic. I'm pointing out that it appears that living is a requirement for consciousness and that inanimate computation while operating in a similar manner is not conscious in the same way. It is always a toaster.

If consciousness could be generated by a non-living machine, everything you see would look exactly the same as it does to you right now. So when you say "it appears that", you're not talking about an observation. If that's the case, one would have to wonder by what process you came to this conclusion.

I posit that when you say "it appears that", you're merely describing your own personal prejudices, and that you have nothing legitimate to base those prejudices on.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Is there a viable physical description of "motion" ?

Is there a non-physical description of motion? I would have thought that motion was capable of being specified in terms of physical terms such as location and time - as opposed to non-physical, anthropocentric subjective terms like "instruction".

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Belz...

There is.

It might appear to be, but if terms such as "question", "answer" and "instruction" are used, there is an implied person involved. Certainly these are not physical quantities.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Darat

False dichotomy.

I really don't see how something can be dismissed as undefined, and fully explained at the same time.

I get the impression that some of the people claiming that computer consciousness is, or can be, entirely equivalent to human consciousness, are willing to simply discard the subjective experience aspect as being meaningless. Others simply insist that if the external behaviour can be sufficiently closely mimicked, the internal experience has to be the same.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by punshhh

I do agree, perhaps a consensus on the definition of life can be achieved, which can then be added to the debate ( I won't hold my breath).

Do you agree that life emerged from inanimate matter?

...snip...

That question is meaningless until you provide your definition of "life". And there is no need for a consensus for the definition it just requires the definition you are using for the word for your question to have meaning.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by westprog

I really don't see how something can be dismissed as undefined, and fully explained at the same time.

...snip...

That's different to what you said (that I was responding to).

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Darat

That's different to what you said (that I was responding to).

Then I'm happy to clarify my thinking.

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by Complexity

Your definition can be sharpened up a bit.


Some conventional definitions of an algorithm include:

• An algorithm is a process the execution of which is clearly specified to the smallest details.
• An algorithm is a sequence of unambiguous instructions of finite length the execution of which is deterministic and will conclude after the execution of a finite number of instructions.
• Any sequence of operations that can be simulated by a Turing-complete system

An algorithm is generally assumed to be deterministic, terminating, and non-quantum unless otherwise stated.

Here are some selections from the first few pages of Hans Hermes' book Enumerability - Decidability - Computability (from which I learned recursive function theory, Turing machines, etc.):

"An algorithm is a general procedure such that for any appropriate question the answer can be obtained by the use of a simple calculation according to a specified method."

"In this book we shall understand by a general procedure a process the execution of which is clearly specified to the smallest details. Among other things this means that we must be able to express the instructions for the execution of the process in finitely long text.
"There is no room left for the practice of the creative imagination of the executer. He has to work slavishly according to the instructions given to him, which determine everything to the smallest detail."

"In this book we want to adopt the convention of calling procedures general procedures only if the way of proceeding is completely unambiguous."

"There are terminating algorithms, whereas other algorithms can be continued as long as we like [e.g. calculating the square root]."

[] added by Complexity.

From the Wikipedia article on 'algorithm':

In mathematics and computer science, an algorithm i/ˈælɡərɪðəm/ (from Algoritmi, the Latin form of Al-Khwārizmī) is a step-by-step procedure for calculations. More precisely, it is an effective method expressed as a finite list[1] of well-defined instructions[2] for calculating a function.[3] Algorithms are used for calculation, data processing, and automated reasoning.
Starting from an initial state and initial input (perhaps empty),[4] the instructions describe a computation that, when executed, will proceed through a finite [5] number of well-defined successive states, eventually producing "output"[6] and terminating at a final ending state. The transition from one state to the next is not necessarily deterministic; some algorithms, known as randomized algorithms, incorporate random input.[7]

While there is no generally accepted formal definition of "algorithm," an informal definition could be "a set of rules that precisely defines a sequence of operations."[11] For some people, a program is only an algorithm if it stops eventually; for others, a program is only an algorithm if it stops before a given number of calculation steps.[12]

Yes I agree those are more useful definitions, but the fact remains that any defined process with steps can be labeled an algorithm.

The point of taking that approach is it avoids westprog's whole "that isn't physical" nonsense. I know you want to ignore him, but it is more satisfying to actually show that he is wrong.

In this case, we can say 1) the behavior that the molecules in a bacterium exhibit when controlling the bacterium, for example controlling reproduction, is a process and 2) there are a series of steps that occur in that process that are always the same.

Hence, there is a clearly physical "algorithm." We can describe, in physical terms using physics and chemistry, the steps that occur. In this case the "steps" are equivalence classes of chemical reactions -- a clearly physical thing. If the process is different, the steps aren't the same, by definition. If the steps are different, then the process is different, also by definition.

Note that I stick with bacteria because it also prevents westprog from invoking the nonsensical "but that is related to humans" argument.

Now wait and see what will happen -- westprog is going to utterly ignore this. He is going to act like nobody even brought up the fact that bacteria control themselves, using behavior that we consider an algorithm, and it has nothing at all to do with humans, and it is clearly physical.

That doesn't prevent anyone else from seeing the truth of the matter, though.

[Complexity]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

I know you want to ignore him, but it is more satisfying to actually show that he is wrong.

My mommy taught me not to play with my food.

Nom, nom, nom.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by westprog

I would have thought that motion was capable of being specified in terms of physical terms such as location and time

What about when your cursor moves across your computer monitor ? How can you describe its motion in physical terms ?

Quote:

- as opposed to non-physical, anthropocentric subjective terms like "instruction".

Considering I input instructions into computers all the time, the bolded word seems poorly chosen.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Belz...

What about when your cursor moves across your computer monitor ? How can you describe its motion in physical terms ?

Indeed. That's a form of motion that, while it can be described in physical terms, isn't the same kind of thing at all. Such apparent motion can exceed the speed of light, for example.

Quote:

Considering I input instructions into computers all the time, the bolded word seems poorly chosen.

Well, I do hate to personalise the issues, but I'm assuming that you're a human being. The instructions come from you.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by westprog

Indeed. That's a form of motion that, while it can be described in physical terms, isn't the same kind of thing at all.

The cursor can be described in physical terms ? Where is it, exactly ?

Quote:

Well, I do hate to personalise the issues, but I'm assuming that you're a human being. The instructions come from you.

The instructions can also come from a computer or some inanimate process like pressure on a barometer, for instance. You are intentionally picking human agency to support your point about anthropocentrism.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by punshhh

The problem is the assertion that the running of an "algorithm" results in consciousness.

Why is that a problem?

Quote:

This is a non sequitur, not least given the problems with a definition of consciousness.

How is it a non-sequitur?

Quote:

Once this assertion is demonstrated producing a consciousness in the lab I will accept it and que up at the teleportation device.

Now that is a non-sequitur.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Belz...

The cursor can be described in physical terms ? Where is it, exactly ?

It depends. You can have an anthropocentric view, which depends on what it looks like. Or you can go with the physical description of different pixels being lit in succession. However, the two things are distinct.

Motion as a physical phenomenon has a physical description. Motion as a subjective phenomenon has a subjective description.

Quote:

The instructions can also come from a computer or some inanimate process like pressure on a barometer, for instance. You are intentionally picking human agency to support your point about anthropocentrism.

Human agency is involved in all computer systems. The meaning of the algorithm comes from the purpose. A system with a computer is not distinct from a system with a computer and a barometer. The description of the system relates to the purpose for which its used.

It's possible to provide a physical description of any single algorithmic system, obviously. I'm looking for a general description.

EDIT:

It's possible for a computer system to be entirely self-contained. It might, for example, be a standalone system that controls the level of water behind a dam. When the level of the water reaches a certain depth, a gate will open to release water, and close when the water has dropped again. Such a system might continue to operate after all human being had died.

However, if we are to identify the algorithm associated with the system, in an unambiguous, physical way - as opposed to a mere physical description of the operation of the system - then it is difficult to see how we can do so without reference to human agency and purpose.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by westprog

However, if we are to identify the algorithm associated with the system, in an unambiguous, physical way - as opposed to a mere physical description of the operation of the system - then it is difficult to see how we can do so without reference to human agency and purpose.

You seem confused.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by westprog

It depends. You can have an anthropocentric view, which depends on what it looks like. Or you can go with the physical description of different pixels being lit in succession. However, the two things are distinct.

Motion as a physical phenomenon has a physical description. Motion as a subjective phenomenon has a subjective description.

So many words to NOT answer my question.

Quote:

Human agency is involved in all computer systems.

We're talking about instructions, not computers.

Your cells are getting instructions from DNA decoding proteins, etc.

Quote:

It's possible for a computer system to be entirely self-contained. It might, for example, be a standalone system that controls the level of water behind a dam. When the level of the water reaches a certain depth, a gate will open to release water, and close when the water has dropped again. Such a system might continue to operate after all human being had died.

So no human is giving instructions to the computer. You might want to retract your previous statement, then.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Belz...

So many words to NOT answer my question.

I don't know what more you want. You insisted that a non-physical definition of motion is possible. I accepted that, but I don't see what help it is for your position. The physical definition of motion still exists, in a way that a physical definition of an algorithm does not.

Quote:

We're talking about instructions, not computers.

Your cells are getting instructions from DNA decoding proteins, etc.

And we can express any physical process in terms of instructions, in that case. The problem is exactly the same as with algorithms - the definition is either too wide, or too narrow.

Quote:

So no human is giving instructions to the computer. You might want to retract your previous statement, then.

If the computer were not instructed, it would not be doing anything.

I've never claimed that a computer was not a physical object that continues to exist in the absence of human beings.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by westprog

And we can express any physical process in terms of instructions, in that case.

Well, first, no, and second, if it were true it would invalidate your entire argument.

Would you like to play again?

[Mr. Scott]

Originally Posted by Leumas

When you hypothesize such things always keep in mind EVOLUTION.


So how would such "embellishment modules" come to evolve?

Now we might speculate that modules that serve a primary evolutionary function may also have a side-effect of "embellishing” but I doubt there are modules that are specifically for "embellishment".

I always keep in mind evolution, because it explains everything.

"Embellishment" is probably not a good word. I was just trying to make a distinction between what seems essential for consciousness and what isn't but could be mistaken for essential elements. The brain is full of complicated, messy but nevertheless useful modules. I don't think "primary evolutionary function" makes sense. I think you mean "primary survival function" or "reproductive function," but I'm really only talking about primary functions for consciousness.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Belz...

The cursor can be described in physical terms ? Where is it, exactly ?

I didn't say that the cursor can be described in physical terms.

Quote:

The instructions can also come from a computer or some inanimate process like pressure on a barometer, for instance. You are intentionally picking human agency to support your point about anthropocentrism.

There is always human agency and intentionality involved in any computer system. That is where the algorithms come from.

[Mr. Scott]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

But is anticipating the future an essential feature of survival? It doesn't matter if you have an actual expectation - just have the right sorts of reactions to stimuli. An organism that didn't have the right sorts of reactions wouldn't live to reproduce.

I was wrong about that. Anticipating the future is helpful, but not essential for survival, unless competing against creatures that can.

I was trying to say that anticipating the future was useful for survival, but probably not essential for consciousness to emerge.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by westprog

There is always human agency and intentionality involved in any computer system. That is where the algorithms come from.

First, nonsense, and second, where do you think human agency and intentionality come from?

[Leumas]

Originally Posted by Mr. Scott

I always keep in mind evolution, because it explains everything.

"Embellishment" is probably not a good word. I was just trying to make a distinction between what seems essential for consciousness and what isn't but could be mistaken for essential elements. The brain is full of complicated, messy but nevertheless useful modules. I don't think "primary evolutionary function" makes sense. I think you mean "primary survival function" or "reproductive function," but I'm really only talking about primary functions for consciousness.

This short-ish essay by Mark Twain is slightly antiquated in certain aspects but is AMAZING when you consider the epoch.

If you replace a few words with their more appropriate MODERN equivalents the essay is downright SURPRISING in its prescience.

It is extremely interesting in the light of this thread's topic and general discussion in it.

Originally Posted by Mark Twain

WHAT IS MAN?


I

a. Man the Machine. b. Personal Merit


[The Old Man and the Young Man had been conversing. The Old
Man had asserted that the human being is merely a machine, and
nothing more. The Young Man objected, and asked him to go into
particulars and furnish his reasons for his position.]

[snip great stuff]

We (mankind) have ticketed ourselves
with a number of qualities to which we have given misleading
names. Love, Hate, Charity, Compassion, Avarice, Benevolence,
and so on. I mean we attach misleading MEANINGS to the names.
They are all forms of self-contentment, self-gratification, but
the names so disguise them that they distract our attention from
the fact. Also we have smuggled a word into the dictionary which
ought not to be there at all--Self-Sacrifice. It describes a
thing which does not exist. But worst of all, we ignore and
never mention the Sole Impulse which dictates and compels a man's
every act: the imperious necessity of securing his own approval,
in every emergency and at all costs. To it we owe all that we
are. It is our breath, our heart, our blood. It is our only
spur, our whip, our goad, our only impelling power; we have no
other. Without it we should be mere inert images, corpses; no
one would do anything, there would be no progress, the world
would stand still. We ought to stand reverently uncovered when
the name of that stupendous power is uttered.

[snip more great stuff]

[Mr. Scott]

Originally Posted by westprog

I didn't say that the cursor can be described in physical terms.



There is always human agency and intentionality involved in any computer system. That is where the algorithms come from.

I can't believe we are bickering about what an algorithm is in a thread about the nature of consciousness. It's a very well defined term. Can we agree to it's standard definition? I like this one:

Quote:

a set of rules that precisely defines a sequence of operations.

The internal operations of brain cells are algorithms executed by chemical reactions, as are the operations of the connections between brain cells. Trillions of these working at the same time can be fairly accepted as a humongously complicated algorithm in which consciousness emerges.

If you disagree, explain how it can't.

[Leumas]

Originally Posted by Mr. Scott

I was wrong about that. Anticipating the future is helpful, but not essential for survival, unless competing against creatures that can.

I was trying to say that anticipating the future was useful for survival, but probably not essential for consciousness to emerge.

Actually that is not necessarily the case. You do not have to be competing against others at all. If you can anticipate droughts or rain or stampeding herds or herd migration routes etc. etc. you would have a very good survival advantage all by itself without competing...well maybe you can call it competing with the elements.

[yy2bggggs]

Originally Posted by Mr. Scott

I was wrong about that. Anticipating the future is helpful, but not essential for survival, unless competing against creatures that can.

I was trying to say that anticipating the future was useful for survival, but probably not essential for consciousness to emerge.

It probably depends on what you want to consider consciousness, and what you want to consider predicting the future. At some level, predicting the future is a key element of volition.

In particular, every act of volition begins with a plan based on a prediction of what would happen when we initiate certain behaviors. During the act, the results of the behaviors are monitored and compared to the predictions--if they match, we get a sense of control over an action. If they mismatch too much, we get a sense of a lack of control.

If you consider this aspect critical for consciousness, what remains is whether you consider the predictions inherent in volition to be prediction of future actions (we could draw a line solely on some pragmatic level and call such things "predicting the present", though it's not technically true).

I also suspect along the same lines that these models, when extended into the world (in terms of not only what we can move, but what we can touch and manipulate; and projections of a similar kind) form a basis for intentionality.

[Leumas]

Originally Posted by Mr. Scott

I can't believe we are bickering about what an algorithm is in a thread about the nature of consciousness. It's a very well defined term. Can we agree to it's standard definition? I like this one:



The internal operations of brain cells are algorithms executed by chemical reactions, as are the operations of the connections between brain cells. Trillions of these working at the same time can be fairly accepted as a humongously complicated algorithm in which consciousness emerges.

If you disagree, explain how it can't.

Animals do NOT have any inbuilt algorithms..... algorithms SIMULATE what animals do.... but animal behavior is not due to any algorithms. It is due to perceptions, actuations, reactions, and feedback with memory.

Look at this flow chart



I think this pdf might explain a lot about what I mean. Read sections 16.1 to 16.3 inclusive.

ETA: The language talks about algorithms and control logic, but that is because the final aim of the chapter is to create a robot that implements the system. However if you consider what actually happens you will see that it is not algorithms per se. Also the blocks that say "control and comparison logic" should really say neuron reactions but it is worded that way to make it RELATABLE to computer programming so as to actually IMPLEMENT the whole thing on a computer.

[PixyMisa]

And the distinction is?

[Leumas]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

And the distinction is?

If you know how an old fashioned analog TV/Record player worked and how a new Digital TV/MP3 player works then the distinction is like that.

In Analog TV's there were circuitry to receive and filter and tune and amplify and change magnetic fields to move electron beams and so forth.

In a digital TV there are receivers to receive and tune but from that point onwards everything is an algorithm run by a computer (or a few) to simulate filters and amplifiers and so on. The output is still analog of course.

In other words in an Analog system there was no COMPUTING going on… there were no procedures and steps. Things worked in response to levels of voltages and currents. Everything worked together for an overall effect. There is no CENTRAL processing system.

A digital system uses a CENTRAL PROCESSING UNIT (CPU) which has an inbuilt procedure (algorithm).


Animal brains and bodies are more akin to an analog TV than they are to a digital TV. There is no CPU.... you may want to argue that the brain is a CPU....but it is not... it is very different from a CPU and very different even from the old analog computers.

If you know what a Neural Network is then that is the closest thing we have come to building anything like a brain..... but not quite even then…. Physical neural nets do not have algorithms unless each node is a CPU but then the CPU is just acting as a more adaptive way to create the analog node that could have been built from analog components but with less adaptability.

[punshhh]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Why is that a problem?

It doesn't follow, consciousness may require something else.

Quote:

How is it a non-sequitur?

It assumes the emergence of consciousness.
I accept that consciousness is not very well defined, however this should engender caution in making assumptions about consciousness.

Quote:

Now that is a non-sequitur.

I have always been a fan of Star treck.

Imagine being the science officer on the Enterprise, (Picards Enterprise)