[helene_t]

I read some books about consciousness recently. I'm fascinated by the topic. Anyone here shares my interest?

Rene Descartes said "I think, thus I am", meaning that the only thing he could be sure of was his own consciousness. Everything else could, in theory, be illusions. Many philosophers still subscribe to that notion. But he also thought there was a (non-physical?) thing ("mind-stuff") which could exist independently of the brain but somehow interacted with the brain's "control center", the place where sensory input arrives and conscious commands to the body comes out. The problem with this is that if "mind-stuff" can interact with physical things (specifically the brain), it must itself be something physical. So today, dualism is dead, but it is not quite clear by what it has been replaced.

Susan Blakemore is convinced that the free will is an illusion and she also thinks that consciousness is an illusion. I have sympathy for her ideas and as for the free will, I certainly agree. But as for consciousness, I have a problem. It seems to me that only a conscious being is capable of having illusions, so an illusion of consciousness gives infinite recursion. I haven't read her books yet, only secondary sources.

Alan Turing devised the "Turing test": a question you could ask a computer to verify if it really possessed human mental capabilities, or if it was just pretending. A lot has been written about what question should be asked, and if the answer would ever be affirmative.

Richard Dawkins (was it him? maybe I'm confusing him with someone else) says that no Turing Test could reveal if someone is sentient (Dawkins prefers to talk about sentience instead of the more vague concept of consciousness). According to Dawkins, sentience is not important for behavior and thus cannot be deduced from observations. I think Dawkins, thus, counts as a behaviorist, except that his scope is limited to evolutionary theory. There are some hints in his books that he thinks that consciousness/sentience are relevant concepts in other areas although irrelevant for evolutionary biology.

Stephen Pinker wrote a brilliant book "How the mind works", but he has no account of consciousness. After having dismissed all proposals, he arrives at the conclusion that the problem might be beyond our potential of comprehension. He hopes that we will some day encounter extra-terrestrials with better brains than ours, who do grasp consciousness. But he's afraid we would not be able to follow their explanations.

Pinker refers to (and dismisses) several modern schools:
1) Consciousness is crap (Blakemore)
2) Consciousness may exist but is irrelevant in behavioral studies.
3) Consciousness arises automatically when the complexity of an information-processing devise reaches a certain level. Maybe our desktop computers today are already conscious. Otherwise, the 2008 model might be. It won't be easy to tell.

Daniel Denett is arrogant enough to claim that he solved the problem with his "Consciousness explained". I'm not convinced. He starts with a brilliant account of hallucinations and dreams, in which he argues that consciousness works by asking questions to which our primary perceptive "modules" provide answers. If you smoke cannabis, you will ask the same questions as if you were clean (or maybe slightly different ones, but that's not essential) but your perceptive module provides noisy answers. I hoped that the rest of the book would be equally brilliant, but it wasn't. Also I think that some of his ideas (the emphasis he puts on the role of language, and consciousness as a cultural innovation that may be only 30,000 years old or such) are absurd. But maybe Denett is to me what the hyper-intelligent ET is to Pinker......

Roger Penrose subscribes to an interpretation (is it the one called the "Copenhagen" model?) of quantum mechanics, according to which consciousness plays a key role in physics. He thinks that a new theory, deeper than quantum mechanics, is required to account for consciousness. But I strongly disbelieve in the relevance of physics in neurophysiology. No matter what kind of physics governs the behavior of individual neurons, the hard problem in neurophysiology is to undersstand the complexity of the whole brain. So postulating some new physics is uncalled for. It violates Occam's Razor.

I still liked his book "The emperor's new mind" a lot, though. Natural scientists can sometimes write refreshing stuff abut problems that usually belongs to the humanities. I like what he writes about the role of language in consciousness: Philosophers often emphasize language, presumably because language is well-suited for philosophizing. But as a mathematician, Penrose begs to differ. Language doesn't really help to think about math. So as a mathematician, he's very much aware that it is possible to think without language.

Here are my own few cents:
- You shouldn't ask if a dog (or a stage x embryo, or a computer, or an Alzheimer patient) is conscious or not. You should ask how conscious it is. As almost everything in nature, consciousness must be thought of as a quantity.
- Our consciousness is, at least to a large extent, a passive observer. My "reptile brain" decided to vote for the LibDem's and then my consciousness made up a post-hoc argument why I did so, but the role consciousness played in the decision is largely an illusion.
- Suppose a computer could pass the Turing test. Would it be sentient? If it emulated my brain by emulating each neuron apart, I'm sure the question is "yes". If it used a completely different approach, I'm not sure.
- If you're afraid of dying because you don't believe in a spiritual life after the decay of your brain, here's something to comfort you: there is no reason to assume that the sentient "self" is persistent anyway. Anyone who has the same information as you have can be sentient in the same way and thus be an indistinguishable sentient entity. Write down your memories and your soul will survive in the minds of those who read it. Of course you have to be an extremely skilled writer to make this work to a satisfactory extent.
- What is the evolutionary advantage of being sentient? It might be a parasitic meme, or some non-productive spinn-off. But two cognitive faculties seem to be tight with sentience. One is the use of mental images in strategic planning. The other is empathy. We know that some animals can create mental images, and that some are empatic. Those are probably sentient, albeit not necesarily as strongly as humans are. Merely having memory, and being able to respond to pain, feromones etc. probably doesn't require consciousness.

[Gerben42]

Let's first decide what we are talking about.

Quote

Consciousness is a characteristic of the mind generally regarded to comprise qualities such as subjectivity, self-awareness, sentience, sapience, and the ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one's environment. It is a subject of much research in philosophy of mind, psychology, neuroscience, and cognitive science.

Source: Wikipedia.

I think this would fit very well to your option:

Quote

3) Consciousness arises automatically when the complexity of an information-processing devise reaches a certain level.

If you mean sentience, at least every animal with a brain has one. Humans are not special but just at the end of a scale of sentient beings. As far as we know next in the list are our closest relatives, apes, and whales. Their sentience can be compared with that of mentally disabled humans, who might do well in an ape world but are unable to function in the complicated world we have created for ourselves.

The reason people like to talk about consciousness is the notion of the soul and free will. Where does "reacting to the actual state of the universe around you using a fixed set of rules" end and "I choose how to react to the state of the universe around me" start? I also think there is no fixed border between these two. Let's take an example of a pet cat. Sometimes it likes to be petted by humans, sometimes not. Does it act in free will or is it wired in its program? A bit of both.

Above a certain complexity you have self-awareness, which is the base for planning behaviour, which is in some situations advantageous compared to "making it up as you go along", which leads us to the evolutionary advantage of consciousness. To plan ahead you need to know who you are.

[helene_t]

Gerben42, on Jun 20 2007, 11:14 AM, said:

The reason people like to talk about consciousness is the notion of the soul and free will.

That may be the motivation of lay people and of those philosfers who deal with metaphysics and morality. For example, many people have the idea that it is only "right" to punish a criminal if he acted out of "free will". But I don't think that is, or at least I don't think it should be, the motivation for scientists. Moralists and metaphysicists may need a concept of a free will, but as I see it, science does not need it.

Quote

Where does "reacting to the actual state of the universe around you using a fixed set of rules" end and "I choose how to react to the state of the universe around me" start? I also think there is no fixed border between these two. Let's take an example of a pet cat. Sometimes it likes to be petted by humans, sometimes not. Does it act in free will or is it wired in its program? A bit of both.

I can imagine two models for the cat's decision process:
1: The cat has been conditioned to either approach humans or avoid them, depending on a number of factors including it's own emotional state.
2: The cat creates a mental image of itself approaching a human and subsequently being petted. If it likes that image (i.e. if it induces certain emotions which we could call "positive emotions"), it acts according to it, i.e. it approaches the human.

Now it could be that the first model could be carried out by a zombi cat, while the second model requires sentience.

Is that a strong assumption? I think it's reasonable to speak about the emotional state of a zombi. But could a zombi create mental images? When I test my statistical software on simulated data, you might say that the simulated data form the computer's mental image of the real data I have in mind, Yet I'm reluctant to attributing sentience to the computer. I have a vague feeling that it would take a stronger case for me to attribute sentience to my computer. But I have no clue what such a stronger case might be like ....

[Fluffy]

Sorry to go theological, but its about free will.

There is free will, or there is something related to it.

I do believe in that because I once became aware of the impliations of it not existing. It meant the universe would be a an inmense lot of stars, planets, atoms, particles and whatever, ruled by quamtum/physic laws, with each particle creating causal effects on others, but causal means predictable, if we knew all laws we could simulate anything then. It means if we were cloned and put into same conditions we would act exactly the same way, everything would.

I wonder if you can imagine a full universe condemned to just exist (and nothing else) for eternity, with no sole purpose at all except being there.

I could imagine it once, I remember I felt filled with infinite sadness, it was the saddest moment in my life.

I just can't accept it as true.

[helene_t]

Fluffy, on Jun 20 2007, 12:28 PM, said:

but causal means predictable, if we knew all laws we could simulate anything then.

I used to have severe problems with the non-existence of free will, for the following reason: Suppose the simulator predicted that you're going to drink a cup of cofee in five minutes. There's certainly nothing in the way of you being a stuborn person, refusing to drink cofee in five minutes, just to tease the computer. Then I realized that the problem remains even if my brain was a (zombi) computer, programmed to disobey the predictions from the big computer. When I thought about it more deeplyit turned out that it was just another silly "this statement is false"-paradox.

Another problem is if one becomes careless by not believing in the free will. You may wonder if it would lead to thought patern like "there's no reason to think about this decision since it has already been decided what I will decide, no matter if I think about it or not". This is not my experience. It also isn't logical, since you might as well say "I'm just a stupid puppet and it has already been decided that I will put a lot of efort into considering my future actions. I can't help considering, even if it makes no sense".

I do, however, have the idea that I've grown less guilt-feeling after I lost my belief in the free will. Then again, it may simply be an effect of growing older.

[Fluffy]

If you simulate what you would do if you knew what was gonna happen then with no free will you would do always the same .

So you can believe that the whole universe is there just for nothing?

Maybe I cannot just because I know I would kill myself just after believing it. And my self protection instinct doesn't allow me to do so.

[Gerben42]

Quote

So you can believe that the whole universe is there just for nothing?

Let me turn this around. You can believe it is for something? However comforting this might be I don't see any logic in the statement "The universe must be for something or I'd be unhappy".

Playing bridge is not "for" something either, yet I like it. I like living too so I continue doing that as well

But this is not what the thread is about.

[hrothgar]

This question is a specific example of a large class that I simply don't bother to worry about.

I took a course on philosophy back in undergrad. We spent lots of time looking at different ontological proofs for existence of God and (slowly) branching out into Locke, Berkeley, and Hume. At the end of the class, the only real conclusion that I reach was that none of this matters.

[Al_U_Card]

Helene, as good as all of these high powered individuals are, and their positions are just as valuable as your ideas are, my question to you is rather;

What would you like consciousness to be?

[BebopKid]

Al_U_Card, on Jun 20 2007, 08:51 AM, said:

What would you like consciousness to be?

Great question!

[Al_U_Card]

And the best part is, all of the answers will be "right"

[DrTodd13]

I almost launched into a discussion in the quantum mechanics thread because I do think it ties in. Helene...there is a reason to believe physics may play a role in the brain. Penrose's argument is that the human brain can do things that are provably un-doable for a classic computer/turing machine. This statement is so important I should say it again. Humans have performed mental tasks that it has been proven that a turing machine could never complete, no matter how complex it was. The only thing beyond deterministic turing machines seems to be quantum computing. The very fact that humans have proved such things is an example of itself.

I agree with what someone else said. Free will is a great mystery. It has to live in the murky area between determinism and randomness. Maybe it is just wishful thinking but I can at least recognize it as such. I don't want the existence of free will to be disproven because I know what the societal ramifications would be. Philosophy matters. People might not be able to say what philosophy is influencing them but it does trickle down and influence people. The pretty obvious result of masses of people believing that free will does not exist would be total mayhem. No one is responsible for their actions because they can't control them. Therefore, we shouldn't punish them. Out the window has to go all notions of right and wrong. Murder is just the destruction of a biological machine. Nothing wrong with destroying a machine so long as it doesn't belong to someone else. The thing is that the concept of ownership also doesn't make sense in such a world. The problem for those who don't believe in free will is accepting how such a relatively small impetus (the widespread knowledge of lack of free will) would result in such massive change.

[hrothgar]

DrTodd13, on Jun 20 2007, 09:06 PM, said:

I almost launched into a discussion in the quantum mechanics thread because I do think it ties in. Helene...there is a reason to believe physics may play a role in the brain. Penrose's argument is that the human brain can do things that are provably un-doable for a classic computer/turing machine. This statement is so important I should say it again. Humans have performed mental tasks that it has been proven that a turing machine could never complete, no matter how complex it was.

Actually what you should say is that Penrose claims that Humans have performed mental tasks that a Turing machine could never complete.

You should probably also note that very few scientists accept Penrose's claim...

[Al_U_Card]

Consciousness, for me, is the cross product of intention and awareness. Being in the moment and having it become crystally clear because all of your being is focused on that instant. That is living which is more than existance or survival.

The divine spark that is common to all sentience illuminates whatever exists within our field of attention, as that is what we must apply our intention to and it takes awareness to properly direct that intention.

As for free will, perhaps we are responsible for how we undertake our actions. That would allow for both perspectives to remain applicable.

[DrTodd13]

hrothgar, on Jun 20 2007, 10:32 AM, said:

DrTodd13, on Jun 20 2007, 09:06 PM, said:

I almost launched into a discussion in the quantum mechanics thread because I do think it ties in.  Helene...there is a reason to believe physics may play a role in the brain.  Penrose's argument is that the human brain can do things that are provably un-doable for a classic computer/turing machine.  This statement is so important I should say it again.  Humans have performed mental tasks that it has been proven that a turing machine could never complete, no matter how complex it was.

Actually what you should say is that Penrose claims that Humans have performed mental tasks that a Turing machine could never complete.

You should probably also note that very few scientists accept Penrose's claim...

"Scientists" shouldn't really get a vote in this matter. A climatologist would be quite unqualified to voice an opinion. Same for physicists and biologists. They can say they don't believe it all they want. They can say they don't see how it could possibly work. What they need to do is show the flaw in his argument based on computer science. I've yet to see a convincing refutation.

[Fluffy]

Gerben42, on Jun 20 2007, 01:33 PM, said:

Quote

So you can believe that the whole universe is there just for nothing?

Let me turn this around. You can believe it is for something?

Playing bridge is not "for" something either, yet I like it. I like living too so I continue doing that as well

But this is not what the thread is about.

Actually I do. Maybe its just stored data on a big computer waiting for someone to stop the runtime and get some variables before deleting it, but just existing for nothing is something I cannot take.

Quote

However comforting this might be I don't see any logic in the statement "The universe must be for something or I'd be unhappy".

Its not that I am unhappy, its that it is so sad, maybe this has no sense in english, but in spannish things can be sad by themelves, don't need anyone to get sad about them.

I guess you need to want to believe in what I say to understand it. If you could imagine yourself being the universe, as vast as it is, and having to exist forever with no purpose, maybe no sense or feelings either, nothing but just being there...

[Fluffy]

Back to the topic

Human brain has its limits, it is unable to manage large numers, for a human 5x10^36 is the same as 5x10^22, just to much to imagine.

I don't know if this is true for everyone (tell me pelase) but at least for me it is.

There are facts in my head wich I asing a 'flag' or how true they are, I might beleive in something but accept that it may be wrong, or I might flag something as 'I know it', and it is foolproof. I will use that info and never question if I am right, even when I have been wrong before.

What I say is that the upper limit of trust on a fact is not so high. For example I know that Earth is Round, America is at the west or that there are some planets in solar system.

However none of them has to be true, just imagine Matrix or Trumman show and see they aren't completelly foolproof. I was never in america, I never travelled though the world, nor have I seen any planet.

[hrothgar]

DrTodd13, on Jun 20 2007, 10:17 PM, said:

"Scientists" shouldn't really get a vote in this matter. A climatologist would be quite unqualified to voice an opinion. Same for physicists and biologists. They can say they don't believe it all they want. They can say they don't see how it could possibly work. What they need to do is show the flaw in his argument based on computer science. I've yet to see a convincing refutation.

My understand is that the fundamental disagreement is based on whether or not humans are (indeed) able to perform mental tasks that are impossible for a Turing machine.

Penrose is the one asserting a positive. Therefore, the burden of proof rests on him.

[DrTodd13]

hrothgar, on Jun 20 2007, 12:36 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on Jun 20 2007, 10:17 PM, said:

"Scientists" shouldn't really get a vote in this matter.  A climatologist would be quite unqualified to voice an opinion.  Same for physicists and biologists.  They can say they don't believe it all they want.  They can say they don't see how it could possibly work.  What they need to do is show the flaw in his argument based on computer science.  I've yet to see a convincing refutation.

My understand is that the fundamental disagreement is based on whether or not humans are (indeed) able to perform mental tasks that are impossible for a Turing machine.

Penrose is the one asserting a positive. Therefore, the burden of proof rests on him.

The burden is on him until he has provided a proof. Once he has done so then it is everyone else's burden to show why the proof is invalid. In this case, he has provided a proof via example. Everyone else now has to say that either humans have not done that example or that some fundamental theorem of computability is wrong. My impression is that they just say "I don't (more like "won't) believe it" and don't directly say which of these two alternatives are wrong.

[Al_U_Card]

Fluffy, on Jun 20 2007, 03:28 PM, said:

Back to the topic

Do not despair, amigo.

The purpose of creation is to create. Its goal is to create something that is useful. To whom and for what is why we are here. That is a purpose worth pursuing and for which you will never have to worry about not having sufficient meaning.