Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Consciousness Doesn't Care What Processors


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1    encouraged

encouraged

    Astral Projection

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 749 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 13 February 2012 - 08:12 PM

Here I am reading an introduction to a three article series appearing in Science News When I encounter the following:

Science News said:

Ultimately I think the key thing that matters is information,” Koch says. “You have these causal interactions and they can be quantified using information theory. Somehow out of that consciousness has to arrive.” An inevitable consequence of this point of view is that consciousness doesn't care what kind of information processors are doing all its jobs — whether nerve cells or transistors.

“It’s not the stuff out of which your brain is made,” Koch says. “It’s what that stuff represents that’s conscious, and that tells us that lots of other systems could be conscious too.”
Say what?...

Now this article is dealing with the fact that science can be "loopie". As in math, where a formula can result in a number, and so that number can represent that formula. Then, that number can also replace a variable in that formula.

Then the article continues explaining how consciousness "has" the same property of being loopie.

Okay with that as a given, in an attempt to prove something, and with those statements composed by the blood ox red text above being assumed, by us, as being true, is the statement in forest green true?

Yeah! Who am I to argue differently with Koch, but I must since I feel there is a contradiction in the above logic.

It seems to me that a part of my consciousness is not only my "self concept", but also knowing what "Who I am." means to me. "Who I am." and its meaning, is certainly tied up in the "What materials comprise me?" which is answered by the statement, "I am made up of flesh and bones, as well as other biological stuff."

If such is rolled up into being a part of my self concept and if consciousness has the property of being loopie, and I say both are true, then how can the statement in the forest green be anywhere near true? Because in fact I do care. And the fact that I caught this error of thinking and realized initially that it was in error, was a result of my caring, having been told that I would be just as satisfied with my self concept if I were made of transistors. As a flesh and blood individual, I would not.

So, how do we fix this? Is the error in the premise:

once again said:

“You have these causal interactions and they can be quantified using information theory. Somehow out of that consciousness has to arrive.”
And I venture to say that his presence in the field of discussion is the cause of the blindness that allowed such an error:

next paragraph said:

Perhaps, in the end, it will be the ability to create unmistakable features of consciousness in some stuff other than a biological brain that will signal success in the quest for an explanation. But it’s doubtful that experimentally exposing consciousness as not exclusively human will displace humankind’s belief in its own primacy. People will probably always believe that it can only be the strange loop of human consciousness that makes the world go ’round.


Edited by encouraged, 13 February 2012 - 08:20 PM.


#2    7STAR

7STAR

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 40 posts
  • Joined:05 Feb 2012

Posted 14 February 2012 - 03:51 AM

With all due respect to Turin, I think the true test of "Artificial" Intelligence / Consciousness will be the ability of The MACHINE to collapse the wave-function. When that happens. . . all bets are off.

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy.

#3    Habitat

Habitat

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,387 posts
  • Joined:07 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 14 February 2012 - 04:19 AM

View Post7STAR, on 14 February 2012 - 03:51 AM, said:

With all due respect to Turin, I think the true test of "Artificial" Intelligence / Consciousness will be the ability of The MACHINE to collapse the wave-function. When that happens. . . all bets are off.
From: http://integralscien...e-wavefunction/


"Not only is collapse of the wave function totally unverifiable and nonphysical, but another big problem with collapse is that it is in blatant violation of the Schrödinger equation! Any other scientific hypothesis that both violates known laws of physics and is not verifiable would normally be immediately rejected as pseudo-science. Why, then, has the notion of collapse stuck? Perhaps because one consequence of rejecting collapse would seem to be that it would lead us inevitably to the many worlds interpretation. Strange as the many worlds interpretation may be, however, it does have the virtue of being consistent with the laws of physics, at least as we know them so far."  :huh:


#4    ParanormallyJustARedNeck

ParanormallyJustARedNeck

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 45 posts
  • Joined:09 Feb 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee

  • "If one regards oneself as a skeptic, it is a good plan to have occasional doubts about one's skepticism"
    -Sigmund Freud

Posted 14 February 2012 - 09:33 AM

The more I read and study on both sides of the isle, scientific and spiritual, the more I come to believe that if you believe in a notion or an idea enough that you can find evidence to support that claim no matter what it is.


#5    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,192 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The sixth circle

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 14 February 2012 - 01:06 PM

View Post7STAR, on 14 February 2012 - 03:51 AM, said:

With all due respect to Turin, I think the true test of "Artificial" Intelligence / Consciousness will be the ability of The MACHINE to collapse the wave-function. When that happens. . . all bets are off.
Machines can already do this. Anything that "detects" a photon is collapsing the wave-function.

Edited by Rlyeh, 14 February 2012 - 01:21 PM.


#6    7STAR

7STAR

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 40 posts
  • Joined:05 Feb 2012

Posted 14 February 2012 - 01:48 PM

Quote

Any other scientific hypothesis that both violates known laws of physics and is not verifiable would normally be immediately rejected as pseudo-science.

hmm. well it seems to me* that science has had no problem chucking known laws of physics out the window. Take the Big Bang theory and the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.

The Law states energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but the theory says in the beginning there was nothing. . . which exploded. Where's the consensus?


* but I'm no scientist --

Edited by 7STAR, 14 February 2012 - 01:52 PM.

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy.

#7    encouraged

encouraged

    Astral Projection

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 749 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 15 February 2012 - 12:16 AM

View Post7STAR, on 14 February 2012 - 03:51 AM, said:

With all due respect to Turin, I think the true test of "Artificial" Intelligence / Consciousness will be the ability of The MACHINE to collapse the wave-function. When that happens. . . all bets are off.

View PostHabitat, on 14 February 2012 - 04:19 AM, said:

From: http://integralscien...e-wavefunction/
"Not only is collapse of the wave function totally unverifiable and nonphysical, but another big problem with collapse is that it is in blatant violation of the Schrödinger equation! Any other scientific hypothesis that both violates known laws of physics and is not verifiable would normally be immediately rejected as pseudo-science. Why, then, has the notion of collapse stuck? Perhaps because one consequence of rejecting collapse would seem to be that it would lead us inevitably to the many worlds interpretation. Strange as the many worlds interpretation may be, however, it does have the virtue of being consistent with the laws of physics, at least as we know them so far."  :huh:

View PostParanormallyJustARedNeck, on 14 February 2012 - 09:33 AM, said:

The more I read and study on both sides of the isle, scientific and spiritual, the more I come to believe that if you believe in a notion or an idea enough that you can find evidence to support that claim no matter what it is.

View PostRlyeh, on 14 February 2012 - 01:06 PM, said:

Machines can already do this. Anything that "detects" a photon is collapsing the wave-function.

View Post7STAR, on 14 February 2012 - 01:48 PM, said:

hmm. well it seems to me* that science has had no problem chucking known laws of physics out the window. Take the Big Bang theory and the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.

The Law states energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but the theory says in the beginning there was nothing. . . which exploded. Where's the consensus?

* but I'm no scientist --
Okay guys, this is a prime example of what my wife tells me ALL the time, "If I want to have fun, all I have to do is sit down and watch you do the things that you do."

So, here we are chuckling at her chuckling at my attempts to start a discussion on consciousness under the guess of the Philosophy Forum Banner, and what do I get? One hell of a good discussion of Quantum Physics--who says they don't intersect on the theoretical stage of science?

So, frankly, I don't know what to do to... Should I add fuel to the fire, and do a better job of starting the other topic all over with more extracted from the original article?
OR
Should I try to turn this into what was originally intended?

How do I cause these crazy things to happen?

Please continue on this theme if there is more to be said. After this has completed I will re-introduce the other for us to take on!

Now let's see how do I get the wife (pronounced wiif--I grew up in Arkansas, don't you know) to stop giggling?

Edited by encouraged, 15 February 2012 - 12:22 AM.


#8    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,484 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 15 February 2012 - 12:28 AM

View Post7STAR, on 14 February 2012 - 01:48 PM, said:

The Law states energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but the theory says in the beginning there was nothing. . . which exploded. Where's the consensus?

I'm not aware of any theory that claims there was nothing in the beginning.

There is one reference to nothing in the beginning, but it isn't from a scientific theory.  To paraphrase the great philosopher, Groucho Marx:

Quote

"In the beginning, there was nothing. Then God said, "Let there be light". And there was still nothing but you could see it."



#9    encouraged

encouraged

    Astral Projection

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 749 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 15 February 2012 - 12:32 AM

View Post7STAR, on 14 February 2012 - 03:51 AM, said:

With all due respect to Turin, I think the true test of "Artificial" Intelligence / Consciousness will be the ability of The MACHINE to collapse the wave-function. When that happens. . . all bets are off.
If I may add. That isn't the first mistake Turin made!

He hide the basis of understanding languages into the rules in the clipboard buried deep in the Chinese Room, thereby making it agreeable with opponents and making it disappear with proponents. A nasty little thought exercise.

I want to see a computer know what, "He ran the business into the ground means and to derive its etymology!

View Postaquatus1, on 15 February 2012 - 12:28 AM, said:

I'm not aware of any theory that claims there was nothing in the beginning.

There is one reference to nothing in the beginning, but it isn't from a scientific theory.  To paraphrase the great philosopher, Groucho Marx:
As to Nothing:
http://online.wsj.co...1609024244.html
http://www.firstthin...eating-universe

Edited by encouraged, 15 February 2012 - 12:48 AM.


#10    FlyingAngel

FlyingAngel

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,399 posts
  • Joined:29 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 February 2012 - 08:00 PM

I think what the article said is right... Imagine you replace your brain cells one by one, little by little with a mechanical storage, which can do the exact same thing as a cell (interact with other cells, storing information). In final, you do not lose your consciousness. I think consciousness is simply an electrical/chemical signal in our brain which detects the presence of other cells and "command" them.
It's possible to send our consciousness into a machine/computer


#11    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,484 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 16 February 2012 - 12:09 AM

View Postencouraged, on 15 February 2012 - 12:32 AM, said:


Encourage...if you are trying to support a given argument with links, it would behoove you to...well, actually read and understand the links.  If you post a link trying to support one view, and the link itself provides the argument showing how you are incorrect, it kind of makes you look like someone more concerned with winning the argument than solving it.

As I mentioned before, there is no actual theory that claims the universe began from nothing.  Yes, the most brilliant mind on the planet may have well made that analogy when trying to explain one of the most complex scientific explanations in the history of mankind to people who can barely comprehend what the phenomena actually is, however the theory itself does not make that actual claim.

And, as previously mentioned, the articles you linked to do indeed bring up this precise point, in an attempt to avoid such confusion:

Quote

The dramatic possibility Hawking is considering (and many others before  him) is that such a system might make a transition from its "no-universe  state" to a state with one or more universes.

Would this be "creation" in the sense that theologians mean it? And in particular, would it be creation ex nihilo, creation from nothing?

The  answer is no. First of all, one isn't starting from "nothing." The  "no-universe state" as meant in these speculative scenarios is not  nothing, it is a very definite something: it is one particular quantum  state among many of an intricate rule-governed system. This no-universe  state has specific properties and potentialities defined by a system of  mathematical laws.


Edited by aquatus1, 16 February 2012 - 12:15 AM.


#12    encouraged

encouraged

    Astral Projection

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 749 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 16 February 2012 - 12:33 AM

The Science News article's author said:

“...An inevitable consequence of this point of view is that consciousness doesn't care what kind of information processors are doing all its jobs — whether nerve cells or transistors."

View PostFlyingAngel, on 15 February 2012 - 08:00 PM, said:

I think what the article said is right... Imagine you replace your brain cells one by one, little by little with a mechanical storage, which can do the exact same thing as a cell (interact with other cells, storing information). In final, you do not lose your consciousness. I think consciousness is simply an electrical/chemical signal in our brain which detects the presence of other cells and "command" them.
It's possible to send our consciousness into a machine/computer

An inevitable consequence =means= this will occur

consciousness doesn't care =means= that part of you which would normally care, doesn't

However, here I sit realizing that I--that which is currently conscious in me--does care an awful lot if I am composed of transistors or nerve cells.

Perhaps the author means, "The consciousness will not be impacted in its performance if transistors do the processing rather than nerve cells." However, this meaning is hugely different from the meaning above.

Work is work, when it is done, it is done. You can use a knife to sharpen a pencil or the machine pencil manufacturers use. The only conscious I am familiar with has aesthetic values and values of pride. Thereby, it "cares" what it is constructed of.

As to the entry above, I can say, "What if we replace each part of your watch with a cell from your body which can do the exact same thing as the part? You would still be able to tell time." You would, and probably are, saying but that isn't the same. I disagree! The only difference is that the obvious inadequacies are higher up on the surface of the argument--a more obvious level where they can be easily seen.

Likewise, in order to have a transistor array that could replace a neural cell, which can do the exact same thing as a cell you would have to compose the transistor in such a way that it is exactly like the neural cell.

IMHO, it's impossible to send our consciousness into a machine/computer because the world is not a mechanical machine or mechanistic. I argued this topic with a friend in 1986 who now invites himself to Microsoft board meetings, the last time I brought the topic up he said, "That was when I was... Well, lets just say he reversed his position, but he did make his millions.

Edited by encouraged, 16 February 2012 - 12:41 AM.


#13    encouraged

encouraged

    Astral Projection

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 749 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 16 February 2012 - 01:24 AM

View Postaquatus1, on 16 February 2012 - 12:09 AM, said:

Encourage...if you are trying to support a given argument with links, it would behoove you to...well, actually read and understand the links.  If you post a link trying to support one view, and the link itself provides the argument showing how you are incorrect, it kind of makes you look like someone more concerned with winning the argument than solving it.

As I mentioned before, there is no actual theory that claims the universe began from nothing.  Yes, the most brilliant mind on the planet may have well made that analogy when trying to explain one of the most complex scientific explanations in the history of mankind to people who can barely comprehend what the phenomena actually is, however the theory itself does not make that actual claim.

And, as previously mentioned, the articles you linked to do indeed bring up this precise point, in an attempt to avoid such confusion:
You are misjudging your prowess. The answer you gave me before convinced me that you were right after I did some research. So, when someone else saw it the way I had before, I gave them reason to see it the way you expressed.

Perhaps I should note when I have changed my opinion. Please give yourself "a pat on the back."

You response leads me to believe that growing from the exposure to discussion is an unusual thing to experience, otherwise IMO you would have realized it on your own, if I may say so.


#14    PsiSeeker

PsiSeeker

    Omerta

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,543 posts
  • Joined:17 Jul 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia, Queensland

Posted 16 February 2012 - 03:34 AM

Quote

An inevitable consequence of this point of view is that consciousness doesn't care what kind of information processors are doing all its jobs — whether nerve cells or transistors.

I think you misinterpreted the statement.  What it is pointing to is the fact that consciousness isn't necessary in the setup of the physical requirements of being conscious.  It is only a result.

Thus consciousness doesn't care about information processes/nerves w.e doing their jobs.  It is only there when the necessary requirements are met.

Also I saw some conversation going on in regards to nothing.  Something important to understand with nothing is that most of the time it is simply undefined.  Which can be due to not knowing enough of the system one is trying to describe or doing things with an incomplete system you have trying to describe something else.

I.e trying to explain 3 dimensional geometry using only 2 dimensional geometry from a 2 dimensional perspective.  3 Dimensional geometry appears as "nothing" to 2 dimensional geometry visually.  It simply is not there.

An illusion is an illusion.  The key difference between the two is that one is limited by time and the other by perception.

#15    karmakazi

karmakazi

    Crazy Cat Lady

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,190 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Phoenix, Arizona

  • That which does not kill us, makes us stranger.

Posted 16 February 2012 - 03:37 AM

View PostParanormallyJustARedNeck, on 14 February 2012 - 09:33 AM, said:

The more I read and study on both sides of the isle, scientific and spiritual, the more I come to believe that if you believe in a notion or an idea enough that you can find evidence to support that claim no matter what it is.


Yep, made even easier now with google :)

If I had something witty to say, my signature would be a lot funnier.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users