Explain consciousness to the layman.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

A control mechanism modeled inside a Turing Machine...

...or perhaps you might prefer "Universal Computing Machine", if you'd rather not have me use the term "Turing".

I'm not hung up on the precise details of what we call a computing machine. I am concerned with the difference between a control mechanism and a computing machine. While a computation can be exactly duplicated on a different machine, a control mechanism which interacts with the environment cannot.

The essence of, say, the Chinese room concept is that mind is contained in a closed computational environment, where a program is run to produce an output. That seems to me to be a poor model for how the brain works, which is in constant interaction, direct and indirect, with its environment.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by westprog

"Magic" would be insisting that running a computer simulation of a process can produce the same effects as the process itself. No, I don't believe in that kind of magic.

Dodge.

You could simply have said that I misunderstood what you said, clarified, and moved on. Of course you'd rather be snarky.

As it has been explained to you many times over, there is no such thing as "simulated computation". It's either a computation or it isn't. As such, any computer-simulated consciousness (itself computational) will itself be consciousness.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

Do we agree that consciousness evolved, naturally, in at least one species of living entities? If so, then that means qualia, or at least our "sense of having qualia", is a product of evolution, as well. I think it is unlikely that "qualia" came into existence in one solid step. It probably had evolutionary steps of its own, and I call those proto-qualia.

Perhaps, but that wasn't my original point. Allow me to simplify, and go step by step:

Does a computer, sensing colour, experience redness ?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by westprog

A Turing machine is not a fantasy. It's a specification, like motor-bike or television.

You have no idea what a Turing machine is, then. It's a concept. It doesn't, and probably can't, exist in reality, unlike a motor-bike or a television set.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

This thread isn't about Turning Machines.

No, but if we're going to use terms, shouldn't we use the right ones and agree on these terms ?

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

Reducing experiences to "sensory input" (or "physiological input" as I prefer) the same way we reduce a computer images to pixels isn't a very insightful exercise. Yes, it took mankind a looong time to get that far. But, today it's a trivial statement, and doesn't explain how experiences actually come about.

It doesn't *fully* explain how experiences come about, but it is a necessary first step.

Much like understanding raster graphics doesn't *fully* explain what you see on your screen, yet it is a necessary first step.

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by Belz...

You have no idea what a Turing machine is, then. It's a concept. It doesn't, and probably can't, exist in reality, unlike a motor-bike or a television set.

Well ... like a motor-bike with infinite fuel, or a television with infinite channels.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Dodge.

You could simply have said that I misunderstood what you said, clarified, and moved on. Of course you'd rather be snarky.

As it has been explained to you many times over, there is no such thing as "simulated computation". It's either a computation or it isn't. As such, any computer-simulated consciousness (itself computational) will itself be consciousness.

And as I've said many times over, that "proof" takes as its premise that consciousness is a computation, and uses that to demonstrate that it is computational. Of course if you choose to consider the possibilities that consciousness is a computation, you can apply theories of computation to the idea. That doesn't itself demonstrate that consciousness is computational in nature.

As I've been insisting for a long time now, much of the operation of the brain is demonstrably not computational in nature - rather it consists of monitoring and control feedback loops. The theories which apply to computation, such as Church-Turing, do not apply to asynchronous monitoring and control systems. The simulation of such a system is not interchangeable with the system.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

Well ... like a motor-bike with infinite fuel, or a television with infinite channels.

I fail to see how your insistence that a true Turing machine will have infinite resources helps your contention. Clearly, any implementation of a Turing machine that lacks such infinite resources will be less, not more capable, and hence less, not more likely to be able to duplicate consciousness.

I didn't mention this point because it's unlikely to be of practical concern. If a machine designed to produce consciousness lacked sufficient resources, then more resources could be added. However, insofar as it is a relevant point, it is in my favour.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Dodge.

You could simply have said that I misunderstood what you said, clarified, and moved on. Of course you'd rather be snarky.

Don't be absurd. Questions such as "Do you believe in magic" aren't seriously looking for clarification and discussion. It's playing to the gallery. Don't make facetious remarks and then accuse me of being snarky. You could have delved into the issue as to why a refusal to accept the computational rather than physical nature of consciousness equates to a belief in magic. I would address that.

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by westprog

I fail to see how your insistence that a true Turing machine will have infinite resources helps your contention. Clearly, any implementation of a Turing machine that lacks such infinite resources will be less, not more capable, and hence less, not more likely to be able to duplicate consciousness.

I didn't mention this point because it's unlikely to be of practical concern. If a machine designed to produce consciousness lacked sufficient resources, then more resources could be added. However, insofar as it is a relevant point, it is in my favour.

well its because you keep saying things about Turing machines in real life, and there aren't any in real life.

[Wowbagger]

Originally Posted by westprog

While a computation can be exactly duplicated on a different machine, a control mechanism which interacts with the environment cannot.

A control mechanism can be emulated on a computing machine.

Originally Posted by Belz...

Perhaps, but that wasn't my original point.

We were probably picking on some side issue, perhaps.

Originally Posted by Belz...

Does a computer, sensing colour, experience redness ?

No. Not if we are talking about typical computers and light sensors available today. There would be nothing there to do any experiencing.

But, that doesn't mean it's impossible to build a computer, in the future, that does have the necessary aparatus for experiencing things. But, that's a different story. That's probably not what you were referring to.

If, for some reason, you want to find where proto-qualia exists, it would probably be more productive to examine the spectrum of mental processing available in living entities, instead. Somewhere along that line, I can't say precisely where, there are probably early "proto" forms of qualia brewing. Maybe.

On the other hand, if you don't care about proto-qualia, then this aspect of the discussion isn't worth going on any further about.

Originally Posted by Belz...

No, but if we're going to use terms, shouldn't we use the right ones and agree on these terms ?

I'm not the one who brought up Turning machines. I was just responding to whoever did.

For this discussion, I am fine with using "Universal Computing Machines", if everyone likes that better.

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

It doesn't *fully* explain how experiences come about, but it is a necessary first step.

Consider that first step taken! Now, let's move on to what I think are the more interesting next steps...

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Belz...

You have no idea what a Turing machine is, then. It's a concept. It doesn't, and probably can't, exist in reality, unlike a motor-bike or a television set.

If the theoretical Turing model is not applicable to real-life systems, then all the claims put forward about consciousness don't apply. I'm quite willing to accept this.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

well its because you keep saying things about Turing machines in real life, and there aren't any in real life.

If the description of Turing machines doesn't have real-life implications, then why are we talking about them at all?

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by westprog

You start by assuming that consciousness is a computational process, and using a series of deductive steps, you deduce that consciousness is a computational process.

Please point out any function or property we ascribe to consciousness that is other than computational.

Quote:

Be sure to insist that anyone who notices that the entire edifice is built on circular reasoning "believes in magic".

No, we leave the logical fallacies and misrepresentations to you.

Quote:

I said early on that the focus would shift, as it always does, from arguing about consciousness to characterising the motives of the people who fail to fall into line.

Yes, and you're doing a great job of that.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by westprog

As I've been insisting for a long time now, much of the operation of the brain is demonstrably not computational in nature - rather it consists of monitoring and control feedback loops.

What part of that is not computational?

Quote:

The theories which apply to computation, such as Church-Turing, do not apply to asynchronous monitoring and control systems.

Evidence?

Quote:

The simulation of such a system is not interchangeable with the system.

How can something appear to be consciousness without being consciousness?

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by westprog

If the theoretical Turing model is not applicable to real-life systems, then all the claims put forward about consciousness don't apply. I'm quite willing to accept this.

That bears no relation to anything anyone said. And it's a blatant category error on your part.

Computability theory applies to consciousness the same way the Theory of Relativity applies to GPS.

Originally Posted by westprog

If the description of Turing machines doesn't have real-life implications, then why are we talking about them at all?

Do you honestly not understand why your question is nonsense?

[Complexity]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Computability theory applies to consciousness the same way the Theory of Relativity applies to GPS.

That 'whizzing' sound was it going right past his head.

Thanks for your efforts, though.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by westprog

And as I've said many times over, that "proof" takes as its premise that consciousness is a computation, and uses that to demonstrate that it is computational.

You're correct that it assumes that consciousness is computation. What's your alternative hypothesis ?

Quote:

Of course if you choose to consider the possibilities that consciousness is a computation, you can apply theories of computation to the idea. That doesn't itself demonstrate that consciousness is computational in nature.

You're right, of course.

Quote:

As I've been insisting for a long time now, much of the operation of the brain is demonstrably not computational in nature - rather it consists of monitoring and control feedback loops.

How is that not computational ?

Quote:

Don't be absurd. Questions such as "Do you believe in magic" aren't seriously looking for clarification and discussion.

I asked you a simple question to clarify what you said. What you think I meant by it doesn't make me lose sleep one bit. Either answer the question or don't, but don't accuse me of something I didn't do, and don't be surprised if I don't understand your position when you are unwilling to discuss it.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by westprog

If the theoretical Turing model is not applicable to real-life systems, then all the claims put forward about consciousness don't apply. I'm quite willing to accept this.

Again, you seem confused by the discussion.

We model reality with unreal things all the time.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

No. Not if we are talking about typical computers and light sensors available today. There would be nothing there to do any experiencing.

Okay, then. Does it have proto-qualia ? Because if it senses "red", but doesn't have proto-qualia, how do you define what proto-qualia are and how they are formed ? And we haven't even discussed qualia yet. It seems to me, at this time, as though qualia doesn't actually have a definition.

Quote:

If, for some reason, you want to find where proto-qualia exists, it would probably be more productive to examine the spectrum of mental processing available in living entities, instead.

Why ? What is it about living organisms that make them have qualia and computers not ?

[dlorde]

The article describing chimeric colours pins down colour qualia pretty well. An extraordinary piece of work.

It's just a pity that the plates provided for viewing the stygian, self-luminous, and hyperbolic colours that lie outside the normal human colour space are not really suitable for viewing on screen - but if you've got a high quality printer that is colour accurate, you can print them and see the 'impossible' colours predicted by the mathematical & neural models.

[dlorde]

I wonder if there might be some confusion between digital and analogue computation in this thread? As I understand it, the brain uses a kind of hybrid of the two.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Belz...

You're correct that it assumes that consciousness is computation. What's your alternative hypothesis ?

That it's physical.

Quote:

You're right, of course.



How is that not computational ?



I asked you a simple question to clarify what you said. What you think I meant by it doesn't make me lose sleep one bit. Either answer the question or don't, but don't accuse me of something I didn't do, and don't be surprised if I don't understand your position when you are unwilling to discuss it.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by dlorde

I wonder if there might be some confusion between digital and analogue computation in this thread? As I understand it, the brain uses a kind of hybrid of the two.

That's why I referred specifically to Turing machines - Church-Turing being one of the building blocks of the computational approach. Naturally the same people relying on theory about Turing machines are insisting that they don't exist except in a fantasy.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Belz...

What is it about living organisms that make them have qualia and computers not ?

If that is the case, it is due to the physical processes involved.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Again, you seem confused by the discussion.

We model reality with unreal things all the time.

Yes, I know that. That's why I gave a long, detailed explanation of the link between the Turing model and actual computers. I'm not the one who is simultaneously using theories about Turing machines to make real world assertions, and insisting that they only exist as a fantasy.

[dlorde]

Originally Posted by westprog

Naturally the same people relying on theory about Turing machines are insisting that they don't exist except in a fantasy.

I don't know about fantasy, but Turing machines are hypothetical abstractions for computational thought experiments, not real devices (e.g. they use an infinite data/instruction tape).

[Irony]

Originally Posted by westprog

That it's physical.

He asked for an "alternative" hypothesis.

What you said is like someone saying "that's a golden retriever" and you saying, "no it isn't, it's a dog".

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by westprog

That's why I referred specifically to Turing machines - Church-Turing being one of the building blocks of the computational approach. Naturally the same people relying on theory about Turing machines are insisting that they don't exist except in a fantasy.

The same way the Theory of Relativity doesn't exist except in a fantasy?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by westprog

If that is the case, it is due to the physical processes involved.

The physical processes in the human mind are different than the physical processes in a computer?

[Wowbagger]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Okay, then. Does it have proto-qualia ? Because if it senses "red", but doesn't have proto-qualia, how do you define what proto-qualia are and how they are formed ? And we haven't even discussed qualia yet. It seems to me, at this time, as though qualia doesn't actually have a definition.

If and when we figure out how the sense of qualia emerges in our consciousness, we will probably know the steps that would lead to it. Proto-qualia would have some, but not all, of the stages of what we would figure out qualia to be. The answers will become more specific, once the details become more specific.

Originally Posted by Belz...

Why ? What is it about living organisms that make them have qualia and computers not ?

Nothing in particular, except a history of evolutionary mental development. Living organisms, especially those more closely related to us, are much more likely to possess some of the stages of proto-qualia, than a computer system which had not been given the opportunity to evolve in that particular direction. That is all!

[Leumas]

Seeing that Alan Turing is being mentioned I wonder if anyone knows about a little OUTRAGEOUS factoid about Alan Turning.


The British government in 1952 caused this one of the most brilliant minds in the history of humanity to commit suicide.

He was a homosexual and the British government decided to chemically castrate him for it..... BY THE LAW of England at the time....it was a COURT SENTENCE due to him being a homosexual.

And that despite the fact that the man had already contributed to Britain more than most heterosexuals of his time.

But as you already know, it was not just Britain that benefited from his talents it was the whole world. The field of Computer Science would not be what it is if it were not for him.

Alan Turing committed suicide in 1954 after two years of the OUTRAGEOUS treatment he received UNDER THE LAW of that benighted and stupid stupid age (just as stupid as we are today about so many other things).

This fabulous brain was extinguished at the age of 42. Imagine what advances to humanity he could have achieved in another 30 or more years had he lived the rest of his life expectancy.

When is the human race ever going to wake up and realize the atrocities committed by CLOSE-MINDEDNESS and fear of the different and LAWS created by BIGOTS.

Next time someone says that "we are a land of laws" and wants to enforce these laws regardless of humanitarian considerations whatsoever.... by gosh s/he better think long and hard about what has been done in the name of laws created by small minded people throughout history.

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally Posted by Leumas

Seeing that Alan Turing is being mentioned I wonder if anyone knows about a little OUTRAGEOUS factoid about Alan Turning.

Since there's a petition to have him posthumously pardoned, and a thread about it, I suspect some people do

Quote:

This fabulous brain was extinguished at the age of 42. Imagine what advances to humanity he could have achieved in another 30 or more years had he lived the rest of his life expectancy.

Tragic as his demise was, he was more than a little eccentric, and it's quite possible he would have ended up spending years railing against global warming or relativity in green ink

[westprog]

Originally Posted by tsig

The physical processes in the human mind are different than the physical processes in a computer?

There are different physical processes going on in a mind than in a computer, yes. For example, there aren't many chemical reactions happening in a computer.

Of course, there are many other physical systems which operate on the same laws as computers and brains. I don't think it's proposed that they all produce consciousness.

[Complexity]

Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood

Since there's a petition to have him posthumously pardoned, and a thread about it, I suspect some people do

Tragic as his demise was, he was more than a little eccentric, and it's quite possible he would have ended up spending years railing against global warming or relativity in green ink

Much of his 'eccentricity' may have been to Asperger's (or so the speculation goes) or some similar condition.

While your guesses about what he might have done had he lived are 'quite possible', I think them extremely unlikely. We lost many years of having a remarkable mind amongst us. He was treated despicably and that without cause.

[Complexity]

Originally Posted by westprog

There are different physical processes going on in a mind than in a computer, yes. For example, there aren't many chemical reactions happening in a computer.

So you really don't understand anything about the nature of computation.

The physical processes don't matter at all - it could all be done with marbles (I always wanted to build a marble-based computer).

You are getting hung up on the most trivial things. Please go and learn a lot more before venturing into this topic again.

[Leumas]

Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood

Since there's a petition to have him posthumously pardoned, and a thread about it, I suspect some people do.

I did not know about the thread....thanks for the pointer.

Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood

Tragic as his demise was, he was more than a little eccentric, and it's quite possible he would have ended up spending years railing against global warming or relativity in green ink

I am not concerned about his politics.... I am more concerned with what INNOVATIONS and inventions and advances to science he could have done.

Every time I read about such outrages of human injustice I cringe at the thought of how this kind of thing is in most cases caused by religious people doing God's work....or damned politicians.

I think every time someone wants to shout “we are a land of laws” s/he ought to think hard about the bigotry, small mindedness and benightedness and special interests behind the LAWS that caused the killing of Alan Turing and Giordano Bruno and many many more we do not remember.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by Complexity

So you really don't understand anything about the nature of computation.

The physical processes don't matter at all - it could all be done with marbles (I always wanted to build a marble-based computer).

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Leumas]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

COOL..... very nice.