Consciousness

[ryan]

When the brain becomes fully modelled, the questions of "how" consciouness comes from unconsciois parts and "what" consciousness is will still need to be answered.

At what level do you model the brain?

People have been trying to model it on the cellular scale for a while and nothing about how consciousness emerges is understood.

There is no way to model it on the quantum scale. It is far too complicated.

And there is nothing known about the quantum scale that results in the ability to experience anyway.

Is there a scale below the quantum scale?

That is what I have been saying. Even if the brain is fully modeled, there will just be more physical details and description, more of the same.

 

[DBT]

At what level do you model the brain?

People have been trying to model it on the cellular scale for a while and nothing about how consciousness emerges is understood.

There is no way to model it on the quantum scale. It is far too complicated.

And there is nothing known about the quantum scale that results in the ability to experience anyway.

Is there a scale below the quantum scale?

That is what I have been saying. Even if the brain is fully modeled, there will just be more physical details and description, more of the same.

You don't know that. We can't categorically claim that consciousness cannot possibly be generated by artificial intelligence given sufficient processing power. Given that brains, being physical mechanisms, had millions of years to develop the ability to mentally represent their environment in relation to self, this should be also be possible for artificial systems given the advancement in processing power and comparable complexity.

 

[ryan]

That is what I have been saying. Even if the brain is fully modeled, there will just be more physical details and description, more of the same.

You don't know that. We can't categorically claim that consciousness cannot possibly be generated by artificial intelligence given sufficient processing power. Given that brains, being physical mechanisms, had millions of years to develop the ability to mentally represent their environment in relation to self, this should be also be possible for artificial systems given the advancement in processing power and comparable complexity.

By model, I meant full physical explanation of the brain right down to the particles.

A model in science is a generalized representation of a certain level of detail of a certain kind of phenomena. For instance, a model of spruce trees could explain how a particular spruce tree would grow in a particular environment. It would result in just a ton of data that would look nothing like a tree. If we could model how a tree grows in some condition right down to the particle, there would be nothing missing about how the spruce tree grows. We could predict details of what it would look like before the seed even sprouts.

But if we had a full model of the brain, there would be no way it would predict subjectivity. It doesn't matter how you fix the variables in the model. Subjectivity is just not an observable property the way physical properties are.

And I definitely do think that A.I. could have consciousness (consciousness of any definition).

 

[untermensche]

At what level do you model the brain?

People have been trying to model it on the cellular scale for a while and nothing about how consciousness emerges is understood.

There is no way to model it on the quantum scale. It is far too complicated.

And there is nothing known about the quantum scale that results in the ability to experience anyway.

Is there a scale below the quantum scale?

That is what I have been saying. Even if the brain is fully modeled, there will just be more physical details and description, more of the same.

We don't have to model a car engine on the quantum level because our macro model is sufficient.

In terms of models you do not need a model that explains everything.

You need a model that explains sufficiently.

But we do not even have a model for how a bunch of cells creates consciousness. We do not know where to even begin to create one.

 

[DBT]

And I definitely do think that A.I. could have consciousness (consciousness of any definition).

Panpsychism I suppose? In relation to the idea of panpsychism it's not the AI as a system that is forming and generating conscious activity but acting as a receiver for some sort of universal consciousness...is that right?

 

[George S]

That is what I have been saying. Even if the brain is fully modeled, there will just be more physical details and description, more of the same.

We don't have to model a car engine on the quantum level because our macro model is sufficient.

In terms of models you do not need a model that explains everything.

You need a model that explains sufficiently.

But we do not even have a model for how a bunch of cells creates consciousness. We do not know where to even begin to create one.

There is a common fallacy: The argument from ignorance. Just because you don't understand it does not mean it is not understood.

Do you understand the explanation of "The Dress" picture? People experience the same physical phenomenon differently.

We do know that consciousness -- first person experience -- exists.

We do know why consciousness is an advantage to survival. And thus why it has evolved.

We do know how consciousness arises to some degree by experimenting on human beings. We know that stimulation of certain brain areas by electric probes yields a conscious experience that is not reflective of local reality. We know that disease and trauma affects consciousness.

No, sir, we do not need a perfect model. However you reveal your lack of knowledge in this area by claiming that "We do not know where to even begin to create one." What an ignorant statement. The problem is we have too many models from Penrose and his quantum consciousness to neural nets. We know that an entire computer can be created using exactly one logical operation: NAND. (Proof on request.) Further we know that neurology can implement a NAND gate. So it is possible that you have an on-board computer realized in your brain.

That on-board computer may be the entity that observes qualia. You seem to need an observer of qualia to be satisfied that it is a possible model of consciousness. So here is one. No psychic magic. No soul separate from the brain to experience.

Are you going to continue to play the psychological game called "Yes, But"? It goes like this: A person asks a question. All responses are met with "Yes, but that is insufficient." The questioner wins his game when the responder gives up. It is the game internet trolls play. They don't address issues but instead dismiss them with a few lines. It can be a fun game, but it is merely a game.

 

[untermensche]

We don't have to model a car engine on the quantum level because our macro model is sufficient.

In terms of models you do not need a model that explains everything.

You need a model that explains sufficiently.

But we do not even have a model for how a bunch of cells creates consciousness. We do not know where to even begin to create one.

There is a common fallacy: The argument from ignorance. Just because you don't understand it does not mean it is not understood.

Do you understand the explanation of "The Dress" picture? People experience the same physical phenomenon differently.

We do know that consciousness -- first person experience -- exists.

We do know why consciousness is an advantage to survival. And thus why it has evolved.

We do know how consciousness arises to some degree by experimenting on human beings. We know that stimulation of certain brain areas by electric probes yields a conscious experience that is not reflective of local reality. We know that disease and trauma affects consciousness.

No, sir, we do not need a perfect model. However you reveal your lack of knowledge in this area by claiming that "We do not know where to even begin to create one." What an ignorant statement. The problem is we have too many models from Penrose and his quantum consciousness to neural nets. We know that an entire computer can be created using exactly one logical operation: NAND. (Proof on request.) Further we know that neurology can implement a NAND gate. So it is possible that you have an on-board computer realized in your brain.

That on-board computer may be the entity that observes qualia. You seem to need an observer of qualia to be satisfied that it is a possible model of consciousness. So here is one. No psychic magic. No soul separate from the brain to experience.

Are you going to continue to play the psychological game called "Yes, But"? It goes like this: A person asks a question. All responses are met with "Yes, but that is insufficient." The questioner wins his game when the responder gives up. It is the game internet trolls play. They don't address issues but instead dismiss them with a few lines. It can be a fun game, but it is merely a game.

This is clueless.

A model is explaining in some way how the activity in cells arrives at conscious experience. We don't even know what conscious experience is in terms of brain physiology. How can we model the creation of it?

Yes of course conscious experience exists.

But that in itself is not a model of anything.

 

[George S]

Yep the 4 line troll response.

You did not answer what I said in any way. Simply dismissed it. So I dismiss you too. Your response is not worth exercising brain cells.

 

[untermensche]

Yep the 4 line troll response.

You did not answer what I said in any way. Simply dismissed it. So I dismiss you too. Your response is not worth exercising brain cells.

You provide no model yet claim to provide one. A lot of words does not prove one is not a troll.

I'll give you the same challenge to prove your claims.

Tell me the physiological basis of experiencing the color blue.

What does the brain do to create the experience of blue?

 

[ryan]

That is what I have been saying. Even if the brain is fully modeled, there will just be more physical details and description, more of the same.

We don't have to model a car engine on the quantum level because our macro model is sufficient.

In terms of models you do not need a model that explains everything.

You need a model that explains sufficiently.

But we do not even have a model for how a bunch of cells creates consciousness. We do not know where to even begin to create one.

I am not sure what you are getting at. I am talking about the problem of emergence of a consciousness. Any kind of active configuration of known physical properties does not allow for a consciousness property.

 

[ryan]

And I definitely do think that A.I. could have consciousness (consciousness of any definition).

Panpsychism I suppose? In relation to the idea of panpsychism it's not the AI as a system that is forming and generating conscious activity but acting as a receiver for some sort of universal consciousness...is that right?

Well, I have heard of receiver theories. They seem kind of interesting, but I have never argued for them or even brought them up to you. I think you were talking to untemensche about that a while ago.

Anyways, I feel like the more reductionistic the theory can be the better. If consciousness were a fundamental/intrinsic property of matter, and possibly even universal, it would seem to normalize its existence with physical properties of matter.

Yes this kind of property would be immaterial. But it's not like it can affect anything like a ghost popping in and out of existence to scare people. It would just be philosophically theorized to be there where there is matter or certain kinds of matter, the more complex the activity the more complex the consciousness.

 

[untermensche]

We don't have to model a car engine on the quantum level because our macro model is sufficient.

In terms of models you do not need a model that explains everything.

You need a model that explains sufficiently.

But we do not even have a model for how a bunch of cells creates consciousness. We do not know where to even begin to create one.

I am not sure what you are getting at. I am talking about the problem of emergence of a consciousness. Any kind of active configuration of known physical properties does not allow for a consciousness property.

I do not disagree with that.

I use the term "model" loosely. It does not have to be a mathematical model. A verbal description of how a phenomena occurs is a model.

And you are saying the same thing.

Even if we imagine electricity traveling down some neural network there is nothing that can be done with this.

We have known about electricity for a long time. Consciousness has never been shown to be a property of electricity.

 

[ryan]

I am not sure what you are getting at. I am talking about the problem of emergence of a consciousness. Any kind of active configuration of known physical properties does not allow for a consciousness property.

I do not disagree with that.

I use the term "model" loosely. It does not have to be a mathematical model. A verbal description of how a phenomena occurs is a model.

And you are saying the same thing.

Even if we imagine electricity traveling down some neural network there is nothing that can be done with this.

We have known about electricity for a long time. Consciousness has never been shown to be a property of electricity.

Yeah that's all I am saying.

 

[fromderinside]

No, it's not LIKE that - it IS that. Exactly that.

No it is not.

We know how a rain cloud forms. We know how a hurricane forms. We understand the forces involved.

There are too many factors to predict a hurricane too far into the future, but we know a lot about hurricanes.

But on the other hand.

We know absolutely nothing about how experience is created. We do not have the first inkling what it is.

It is nothing like the weather.

...and we know how a brain treats color. It provides receptors for capturing particular segments of the visible spectrum, It organizes such into frequency order just as humans do graphing color frequency. We know how this information is treated in context with shape and form and movement and we can illicit from brain expected reports from placements of stimulating electrodes in selected parts of the brain.

Quite a bit like we know clouds really only more locally measured. As I said we know experience is a state in a process. So you have shape, and water vapor and dust and I have photons and systematic collection of same, known routing of same and relative place in reorganization of same and you say we have nothing.

What we don't have is your acceptance of the pretty evident fact that experience is a state in a process after it's analysis of whatever went on just before.

Probably because all you have is your damned notion of experience with no supporting evidence. but as I said before, I don't know this because it's your belief. All I can do is point to evidence which a rational person would use to falsify such a belief. Apparently not you though.

 

[untermensche]

No it is not.

We know how a rain cloud forms. We know how a hurricane forms. We understand the forces involved.

There are too many factors to predict a hurricane too far into the future, but we know a lot about hurricanes.

But on the other hand.

We know absolutely nothing about how experience is created. We do not have the first inkling what it is.

It is nothing like the weather.

...and we know how a brain treats color. It provides receptors for capturing particular segments of the visible spectrum, It organizes such into frequency order just as humans do graphing color frequency. We know how this information is treated in context with shape and form and movement and we can illicit from brain expected reports from placements of stimulating electrodes in selected parts of the brain.

Quite a bit like we know clouds really only more locally measured. As I said we know experience is a state in a process. So you have shape, and water vapor and dust and I have photons and systematic collection of same, known routing of same and relative place in reorganization of same and you say we have nothing.

What we don't have is your acceptance of the pretty evident fact that experience is a state in a process after it's analysis of whatever went on just before.

Probably because all you have is your damned notion of experience with no supporting evidence. but as I said before, I don't know this because it's your belief. All I can do is point to evidence which a rational person would use to falsify such a belief. Apparently not you though.

You're talking about the reception of light. Sure we know a little about that.

But I'm talking about the experience of blue. The production of the experience of blue. Production, not reception.

In terms of brain physiology we know nothing about that.

 

[fromderinside]

You're talking about the reception of light. Sure we know a little about that.

But I'm talking about the experience of blue. The production of the experience of blue. Production, not reception.

In terms of brain physiology we know nothing about that.

hmmmm. What about recovering something from memory, hmmmmmmm.

or an experience is an experience is an experience .......

Well golly mr ranger with that nice mask on, what about the gal who experiences blue as cold?

ka ching!

 

[Speakpigeon]

But you do have to explain qualia.

You have to explain the existence of consciousness but also the quality of experience. If we assume for example the existence of a brain, we have to explain qualia in relation to this material brain. Maybe there are no brains but we still have to explain qualia. Although maybe it's not possible at all. Who said it had to be?
EB

OK.

So there is that which experiences: consciousness. And to experience always means to experience in a particular way.

You don't know that there is something which experiences apart from the qualia themselves. I accept that it's the usual perspective but we don't know whether it's valid.

Descartes got it right. I am my thought, meaning that I am not some putative subject experiencing his thought.

And we don't experience anything but qualia so we don't experience the supposed subject you're talking about.

The only thing that could look like a subject are autobiographical data we may remember but it's clearly not that which is having the experience.

And there is that which is experienced: sights, sounds, emotions, thoughts and all the rest.

These are also things we don't know that they exist as such. The notions of sights, sounds, etc. are constructs.

What we know are qualia and we may take these, rightly or wrongly, as sights, sounds, etc.

And there is the quality of these experiences.

And this is all we know.

When I'm supposed to have a subjective experience of a sound, all that I know is the quale. It seems to come with this notion that it is a sound and that I am experiencing it, but it's a construct. Maybe it's a representation and maybe it's true to the world but we don't know that.

Which is an emergent property of the combination of the two. Not really something on it's own. Never something existing on it's own.

That's not possible. We know our qualia and qualia are all that we know. And it's not possible to know that which doesn't exist.

Unless you think that when you experience blueness it's somehow delusional?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I won't comment on truisms beyond they point to what I'm about to post. Human beings believe they experience and that model depends on two unprovables and falls on a provable. A believed experience depends on what one believes one can experience and what one believes is experienced. The fact is these are beliefs, personal, and whatever else one needs to thrown on to make something a belief. All that we can know is what we verify publicly. 'We' is a population term here. So we can verify we have something to experience and we have tools with which we can experience. These are tools which I use and you don't use. So you're the one stuck in the belief well.

It is true I can never prove to you what I can do with experience because what your experience is is a belief.

Humans do not believe they experience.

They know it.

Beyond doubt.

Descartes 101. If there is a thought there is something that experiences it. There are my thoughts. Therefore I exist.

And the "I" Descartes is talking about is consciousness. The subjective experiencer.

Descartes was surprisingly very clear as to what is the "I" in the Cogito. The "I" is the thinking thing and the thinking thing is the thoughts themselves. Not just rational thoughts but any emotion, feeling, impression, including impressions of memories. So he didn't actually assume any experiencing subject that would have been distinct from what is experienced.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Humans do not believe they experience.

They know it.

Beyond doubt.

Descartes 101. If there is a thought there is something that experiences it. There are my thoughts. Therefore I exist.

And the "I" Descartes is talking about is consciousness. The subjective experiencer.

Descartes was surprisingly very clear as to what is the "I" in the Cogito. The "I" is the thinking thing and the thinking thing is the thoughts themselves. Not just rational thoughts but any emotion, feeling, impression, including impressions of memories. So he didn't actually assume any experiencing subject that would have been distinct from what is experienced.
EB

Still, reporting what one believes are thoughts by one depends on another believing what the one reports as does any hearing of one expressing what he believes one thought. So if an intervening variable can be replaced by scientific physical law the need for the variable to be explained ceases.

It's a rational trap that cannot be escaped except, possibly, by induction or experimentation and publication through a refereed process.

Exit philosophy enter Science.

I have greater confidence in there is a parade than I have in one individual parading.

For untermenche if there is physical science that explains a topic there need be no more metaphysical rationality about that topic.

Historically, first conscious is removed from the present, from the position of decider to summarizing or future planner then the need for free will is removed. When consciousness is no longer necessary to explain will there is no need for the term consciousness. Explanation of man as machine is complete.

 

[untermensche]

You're talking about the reception of light. Sure we know a little about that.

But I'm talking about the experience of blue. The production of the experience of blue. Production, not reception.

In terms of brain physiology we know nothing about that.

hmmmm. What about recovering something from memory, hmmmmmmm.

or an experience is an experience is an experience .......

Well golly mr ranger with that nice mask on, what about the gal who experiences blue as cold?

ka ching!

What about it?

If you recover the memory of blue the brain still has to produce it.