End of the 1970s. Yep, that's the cat.
Anyway I maintain that all this talk of falling trees making a sound or not depending on the presence of an observer is outside the scope of physics. Physics does not have any model or description of conciouness. There are no theories or even measurements pertaining to awareness or experience etc. Therfore physics does not contain a model of observers and therefore those statements about trees and forrests are not part of physics. Metaphysics and philosophy perhaps.
The brain is a physical system, therefore consciousness must have a physical basis.
I'm inclined to agree with you Leon.
However as far as I know what I said still stands. Physics does not include a model or theory of awarness or conciousness. That is to say the observer is not part of any model of any system in Physics.
Which suggests the question: If an observer is just "more physical system" how can they speak of quantum mechanical wave functions "collapsing" when you do the experiment and make the observation. As in the example of the poor cat. There nothing special about you the observer.
Besides in that thought experiment who decided the cat cannot be the observer of it's own fate?
H, In post #26 Pure Thought - Work or No Work? your argument is based on physical work but the Propeller is an electronic device. I'm confused
The Propeller Elf chip is a physical electronic chip that follows the laws of Physics. Electricity that moves along substrates constitutes moving physical electrons described by the electrical and mechanical laws of Physics. The displacement of electrons and the ability to hold and discharge electrical energy in the Propeller chip constitute work or no work ascribed by the stated physical equation. One could expand the topic with other areas of Physics such as Classical mechanics, Electromagnetism, Thermodynamics and Statistical mechanics, Quantum mechanics, Theory of relativity and the various branches listed below.
Astrophysics
Atomic Physics
Biophysics
Chemical Physics
Molecular Physics
Classical physics
Acoustics
Optics and Electromagnetism
Condensed matter physics and Solid State Physics
Fluid dynamics
Geophysics
Nuclear Physics
Particle Physics
Quantum Physics
Thermodynamics
Theoretical Physics
Physics does not include a model or theory of awarness or conciousness.
No one agrees on an actual definition of consciousness or self awareness, therefore no real equations from Physics exist to define it. One can only examine the individual processes of thought and define subprocesses such as Neurons transmuting along the Synaptic pathway regions of the human brain, or in the case of an electronic brain, the given states of electrical conditions.
Please be careful how you quote people. I never actually said what you have in the quote. In this case you have the gist of the statement so that's OK but often subtle rewordings of statements can change the meaning, or introduce ambiguity.
No one agrees on an actual definition of consciousness or self awareness, therefore no real equations from Physics exist to define it.
Exactly. So we come full circle and agree that Physics says nothing about trees, forests and whether anyone is there to listen or not:)
One can only examine the individual processes of thought and define subprocesses such as Neurons transmuting along the Synaptic pathway...
That's what bugs me. I can stick a pin in my finger. Perhaps someone could follow the resulting pain signals through my hand and up my arm. In a scanner they could follow the signals into my brain and observe various areas getting into a cyclone of neural action. Now we have a nice story about nerves and neurons and synapses and chemical transmitters...But f***ing ouch! Where exactly am I in this picture. Where is the pain being felt? And by what?
Heater: Sorry, the error in quote was unintentional and it's now corrected.
Interesting analogy. But the tree in a forest to me, and what I learned in Physics class, makes good sense. It depends again on the definitions used. From a physiology sense, the sensing element present or not is the human ear and relates to the definition of sound. From the physics aspect, sound waves are created and clearly defined because they don't require a physiological sensing element - the sense could be a material of impingement such as the ground or an object that can illustrate transmission and a period of standing waves. Thus the multi-faceted argument ensues. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forest
If a pin pricks the finger, it activates pain nerves and neural transmitters that go to the pain region of the brain where neural activity responds to it and you receive an "ouch!" You are directly online to those receptors, just like a computer that's online to internet data. Where are you when this happens? My guess is somewhere in the UK. It's no different than a big Propeller machine brain that has some sensors attached to it. With a light detector for example, it sees the light, the signal indicating light travels to the processing part of the Chip (program) and it is acted upon. One could write a pain subroutine that responds with too much light at a particular threshold and output "ouch!". When they write the equation for cognition and awareness it will undoubtedly be shockingly simple IMO.
This is an interesting discussion that could probably go on forever and perhaps we should let it go soon, save it for another day:)
However...I notice that there is no mention of physics in the wikipedia link you posted, save a 100 year old book by some obscure authors. Which I will now have to search out and read.
..One could write a pain subroutine that responds with too much light at a particular threshold and output "ouch!"...
Indeed one could. And I have contemplated it many times. However that says nothing about the awareness or consciousness or "I ness" of the computing system that you have programmed to do that. Just because it behaves as though it is experiencing something does not mean that it is. What you are saying is that you can impart consciousness into a bunch of silicon and wires and sensors simply by means of assembling it correctly and programming it. That is rather a large statement to make.
So yes there is the possibility to simulate the action of all that chemistry and electricity that goes on in my senses and brain and get a similar response but does that mean you have achieved a cloning of my experience of the whole thing. Again I ask "Where am I in all of this?"
The book "The Minds I" by Hofstadter and Dennett is a grate exploration of these ideas. Well recommended.
This is an interesting discussion that could probably go on forever and perhaps we should let it go soon, save it for another day:)
However...I notice that there is no mention of physics in the wikipedia link you posted, save a 100 year old book by some obscure authors. Which I will now have to search out and read.
Indeed one could. And I have contemplated it many times. However that says nothing about the awareness or consciousness or "I ness" of the computing system that you have programmed to do that. Just because it behaves as though it is experiencing something does not mean that it is. What you are saying is that you can impart consciousness into a bunch of silicon and wires and sensors simply by means of assembling it correctly and programming it. That is rather a large statement to make.
So yes there is the possibility to simulate the action of all that chemistry and electricity that goes on in my senses and brain and get a similar response but does that mean you have achieved a cloning of my experience of the whole thing. Again I ask "Where am I in all of this?"
The book "The Minds I" by Hofstadter and Dennett is a grate exploration of these ideas. Well recommended.
That's because, again, consciousness does not have an agreed upon clearly defining definition in both the physical and physiological fields of academia. What is your definition, and criteria for negating it? How does one know the machine is not experiencing consciousness, that your program has instilled a kind of life into the chip, if one cannot even define or know what consciousness is?
Interesting points but I did post 28 with a link to the Physics Forum http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=348631 where they go around discussing this topic from several different angles and in a thread lasting several pages. Perhaps the Wiki also has the information but I don't have time to check.
Again IMO if one simulates enough detail then indeed consciousness will arise from silicon and wires but that is only one approach, i.e. from a simulation aspect. I believe it's better to let consciousness arise in different ways that are more natural, specific and conducive to the silicon or the composition and constructs of the machine life form.
Are you actually against consciousness arising in machine forms or just looking for a better way to define it?
That's because, again, consciousness does not have an agreed upon clearly defining definition in both the physical and physiological fields of academia.
Exactly, we can't even agree on the meaning of the words we use here so it's hopeless. And as a consequence, to repeat myself, physics can have nothing to say about it.
What is your definition...
Good question. Of course I don't have a definition. I can't show you a consciousness. However when I stick that pin in my finger I claim that I experience it, I'm aware of it, I feel it. Same for everything else I experience.
Problem is I can't even prove to myself that there is any other such being in the universe that feels like I do. Even so I tend to presume there is. Fellow humans for exampl. Not long ago people denied that animals had such feeling. In recent times people have begun to suspect that some do. Still that view does not extend to the possibility that otherwise lifless objects can be inbibed with conciousness.
...and criteria for negating it?
Can't prove there is, can't prove there isn't. I just know that I have one. I feel it all the time.
Again IMO if one simulates enough detail then indeed consciousness will arise
from silicon and wires...
Perhaps, but how will you know when have succeeded? How will you convince me?
Are you actually against consciousness arising in machine forms or just looking for a better way to define it?
As we have no definition of consciousness I can not be for or against the possibility of it happening in machines or anyplace else.
Perhaps the reason "consciousness" is so hard to define is that it doesn't exist in the first place. Maybe it's merely an illusion that's a product of complex behavior.
Perhaps the reason "consciousness" is so hard to define is that it doesn't exist in the first place. Maybe it's merely an illusion that's a product of complex behavior.
That is often suggested. But really if it is an illusion then what is it within me that is experiencing and feeling and aware of that illusion?
I am prepared to accept that the people who propose this idea are soulless automatons without feelings or awareness who cannot imagine what I mean by consciousness and therefor correct in themselves, but I cannot deny my own existence:)
I think you give short shrift to the wonders of complex behavior. What we casually call "consciousness" may simply be an imprecisely-imposed threshold on complexity. If we accept that we think, feel, and act in a physical world, then we must also accept that thinking, feeling, and acting are physical processes. If we deny that, the discussion obtains a supernatural content and exits the domain of scientific discourse. Just because our thoughts are the result of purely physical processes does not render them soulless, unless you also consider the "soul" to be an extracorporeal entity. For me, accepting both consciousness and "soul" as consequences of complexity does not diminish their wonder.
I think you give short shrift to the wonders of complex behavior.
I don't think so. I'm quite wonderous at the behavior of quite simple systems.
Complex systems boggle my mind.
What we casually call "consciousness" may simply be an imprecisely-imposed
threshold on complexity.
Interesting idea and one that is bandied about a lot. And it leads me to this
interesting train of thought:
1) Human beings apparently are sufficiently complex to have achieved
consciousness, still yet to be defined lets' go with it.
2) The combined system of billions of humans intimately connected by the
computers and the internet. Or even more crudely billions of human beings
intimately connected by trade and commerce as we have been for centuries,
constitutes a system far more complex than any single human. In the same way
that a human brain is more complex than a single neuron.
3) Does that imply that said combined system has or can have a consciousness all
of it's own?
4) Presumably we would never know if it attained such a state in the same way
that we might assume than no single neuron in my brain is "aware" of my
consciousness of which it is part.
If we accept that we think, feel, and act in a physical world, then we must
also accept that thinking, feeling, and acting are physical processes.
I'm inclined to go along with accepting that. It's just the "feeling" part I
have trouble with, Aspects of thinking we have already automated with computers,
arithmetic for example or just data storage. So we might guess that the rest of
thinking could be automated as well, if we had a way to specify it. But I can't
imaging how we specify or automate the "feeling" part.
If we deny that, the discussion obtains a supernatural content and exits the
domain of scientific discourse.
True, but it was never in the domain of scientific discourse anyway. No one has
a handle on it yet.
Just because our thoughts are the result of purely physical processes does not
render them soulless, unless you also consider the "soul" to be an
extracorporeal entity.
Actually I blew it. I was trying to keep the word "soul" out of this discussion
because it brings in a mountain of religious thought, souls in heaven, souls in
hell, souls being reincarnated, good, evil etc etc. I can't deal with that.
For me, accepting both consciousness and "soul" as consequences of complexity
does not diminish their wonder.
Not a bad view given what evidence we have and the non-definition of
consciousness. Better to leave mention of "soul" out of this as for many it
implies something that was there before the complexity arose, before birth say,
and is still around after the complexity has been cremated away.
Actually I blew it. I was trying to keep the word "soul" out of this discussion
because it brings in a mountain of religious thought, souls in heaven, souls in
hell, souls being reincarnated, good, evil etc etc. I can't deal with that.
You left out soul being connected by "spooky action at a distance."
I think, therefore I am ... aware that I may be getting dirty sitting on this old cave floor watching the shadows.
The Propeller Elf (PE) is a Propeller thinking brain computer with no parts. It's goal in life is to think. It runs on SPIN software using the conventional support for the Parallax Propeller chip and communicates through a standard Propeller Plug.
...
Thinking takes place with the RC clock and the chips built in protection circuits so no crystal, resistors or caps are required. It can use virtual devices. Debugging is with the PST Parallax Serial Terminal software. For more information regarding the internal structure of the Propeller chip, refer to the Parallax Propeller manual and downloads.
This loosely bound definition of thinking can be applied to all systems. Heck, my sprinkler system has a timer. IMO, thinking is much more than an RC clock and built in protection circuits.
Anywho, I think I spent too much thinking about this...
g3cwi,
Who is this "we" of which you speak? Or even "you"?
If I think a thought and make no action that's enough for me. I can't prove to myself that there are any other sentient beings "out there". If in fact the is even an "out there" for them to be in.
I don't know about anyone else but I am a figment of your imagination.
One question on this subject which is fascinating BTW. Does the micro actually do the "thinking" or is the programmer doing all the thinking and the micro just doing comparisons?
One question on this subject which is fascinating BTW. Does the micro actually do the "thinking" or is the programmer doing all the thinking and the micro just doing comparisons?
Comments
In post #26 Pure Thought - Work or No Work? your argument is based on physical work but the Propeller is an electronic device. I'm confused
The brain is a physical system, therefore consciousness must have a physical basis.
However as far as I know what I said still stands. Physics does not include a model or theory of awarness or conciousness. That is to say the observer is not part of any model of any system in Physics.
Which suggests the question: If an observer is just "more physical system" how can they speak of quantum mechanical wave functions "collapsing" when you do the experiment and make the observation. As in the example of the poor cat. There nothing special about you the observer.
Besides in that thought experiment who decided the cat cannot be the observer of it's own fate?
Astrophysics
Atomic Physics
Biophysics
Chemical Physics
Molecular Physics
Classical physics
Acoustics
Optics and Electromagnetism
Condensed matter physics and Solid State Physics
Fluid dynamics
Geophysics
Nuclear Physics
Particle Physics
Quantum Physics
Thermodynamics
Theoretical Physics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_physics
Please be careful how you quote people. I never actually said what you have in the quote. In this case you have the gist of the statement so that's OK but often subtle rewordings of statements can change the meaning, or introduce ambiguity.
Exactly. So we come full circle and agree that Physics says nothing about trees, forests and whether anyone is there to listen or not:)
That's what bugs me. I can stick a pin in my finger. Perhaps someone could follow the resulting pain signals through my hand and up my arm. In a scanner they could follow the signals into my brain and observe various areas getting into a cyclone of neural action. Now we have a nice story about nerves and neurons and synapses and chemical transmitters...But f***ing ouch! Where exactly am I in this picture. Where is the pain being felt? And by what?
Interesting analogy. But the tree in a forest to me, and what I learned in Physics class, makes good sense. It depends again on the definitions used. From a physiology sense, the sensing element present or not is the human ear and relates to the definition of sound. From the physics aspect, sound waves are created and clearly defined because they don't require a physiological sensing element - the sense could be a material of impingement such as the ground or an object that can illustrate transmission and a period of standing waves. Thus the multi-faceted argument ensues. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forest
If a pin pricks the finger, it activates pain nerves and neural transmitters that go to the pain region of the brain where neural activity responds to it and you receive an "ouch!" You are directly online to those receptors, just like a computer that's online to internet data. Where are you when this happens? My guess is somewhere in the UK. It's no different than a big Propeller machine brain that has some sensors attached to it. With a light detector for example, it sees the light, the signal indicating light travels to the processing part of the Chip (program) and it is acted upon. One could write a pain subroutine that responds with too much light at a particular threshold and output "ouch!". When they write the equation for cognition and awareness it will undoubtedly be shockingly simple IMO.
However...I notice that there is no mention of physics in the wikipedia link you posted, save a 100 year old book by some obscure authors. Which I will now have to search out and read.
Indeed one could. And I have contemplated it many times. However that says nothing about the awareness or consciousness or "I ness" of the computing system that you have programmed to do that. Just because it behaves as though it is experiencing something does not mean that it is. What you are saying is that you can impart consciousness into a bunch of silicon and wires and sensors simply by means of assembling it correctly and programming it. That is rather a large statement to make.
So yes there is the possibility to simulate the action of all that chemistry and electricity that goes on in my senses and brain and get a similar response but does that mean you have achieved a cloning of my experience of the whole thing. Again I ask "Where am I in all of this?"
The book "The Minds I" by Hofstadter and Dennett is a grate exploration of these ideas. Well recommended.
That's because, again, consciousness does not have an agreed upon clearly defining definition in both the physical and physiological fields of academia. What is your definition, and criteria for negating it? How does one know the machine is not experiencing consciousness, that your program has instilled a kind of life into the chip, if one cannot even define or know what consciousness is?
Interesting points but I did post 28 with a link to the Physics Forum http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=348631 where they go around discussing this topic from several different angles and in a thread lasting several pages. Perhaps the Wiki also has the information but I don't have time to check.
Again IMO if one simulates enough detail then indeed consciousness will arise from silicon and wires but that is only one approach, i.e. from a simulation aspect. I believe it's better to let consciousness arise in different ways that are more natural, specific and conducive to the silicon or the composition and constructs of the machine life form.
Are you actually against consciousness arising in machine forms or just looking for a better way to define it?
That sounds like an interesting book!
Exactly, we can't even agree on the meaning of the words we use here so it's hopeless. And as a consequence, to repeat myself, physics can have nothing to say about it.
Good question. Of course I don't have a definition. I can't show you a consciousness. However when I stick that pin in my finger I claim that I experience it, I'm aware of it, I feel it. Same for everything else I experience.
Problem is I can't even prove to myself that there is any other such being in the universe that feels like I do. Even so I tend to presume there is. Fellow humans for exampl. Not long ago people denied that animals had such feeling. In recent times people have begun to suspect that some do. Still that view does not extend to the possibility that otherwise lifless objects can be inbibed with conciousness.
Can't prove there is, can't prove there isn't. I just know that I have one. I feel it all the time.
Perhaps, but how will you know when have succeeded? How will you convince me?
As we have no definition of consciousness I can not be for or against the possibility of it happening in machines or anyplace else.
-Phil
Can an illusion exist if there is nothing to perceive it?
That is often suggested. But really if it is an illusion then what is it within me that is experiencing and feeling and aware of that illusion?
I am prepared to accept that the people who propose this idea are soulless automatons without feelings or awareness who cannot imagine what I mean by consciousness and therefor correct in themselves, but I cannot deny my own existence:)
I think you give short shrift to the wonders of complex behavior. What we casually call "consciousness" may simply be an imprecisely-imposed threshold on complexity. If we accept that we think, feel, and act in a physical world, then we must also accept that thinking, feeling, and acting are physical processes. If we deny that, the discussion obtains a supernatural content and exits the domain of scientific discourse. Just because our thoughts are the result of purely physical processes does not render them soulless, unless you also consider the "soul" to be an extracorporeal entity. For me, accepting both consciousness and "soul" as consequences of complexity does not diminish their wonder.
-Phil
I don't think so. I'm quite wonderous at the behavior of quite simple systems.
Complex systems boggle my mind.
Interesting idea and one that is bandied about a lot. And it leads me to this
interesting train of thought:
1) Human beings apparently are sufficiently complex to have achieved
consciousness, still yet to be defined lets' go with it.
2) The combined system of billions of humans intimately connected by the
computers and the internet. Or even more crudely billions of human beings
intimately connected by trade and commerce as we have been for centuries,
constitutes a system far more complex than any single human. In the same way
that a human brain is more complex than a single neuron.
3) Does that imply that said combined system has or can have a consciousness all
of it's own?
4) Presumably we would never know if it attained such a state in the same way
that we might assume than no single neuron in my brain is "aware" of my
consciousness of which it is part.
I'm inclined to go along with accepting that. It's just the "feeling" part I
have trouble with, Aspects of thinking we have already automated with computers,
arithmetic for example or just data storage. So we might guess that the rest of
thinking could be automated as well, if we had a way to specify it. But I can't
imaging how we specify or automate the "feeling" part.
True, but it was never in the domain of scientific discourse anyway. No one has
a handle on it yet.
Actually I blew it. I was trying to keep the word "soul" out of this discussion
because it brings in a mountain of religious thought, souls in heaven, souls in
hell, souls being reincarnated, good, evil etc etc. I can't deal with that.
Not a bad view given what evidence we have and the non-definition of
consciousness. Better to leave mention of "soul" out of this as for many it
implies something that was there before the complexity arose, before birth say,
and is still around after the complexity has been cremated away.
I think, therefore I am ... aware that I may be getting dirty sitting on this old cave floor watching the shadows.
This loosely bound definition of thinking can be applied to all systems. Heck, my sprinkler system has a timer. IMO, thinking is much more than an RC clock and built in protection circuits.
Anywho, I think I spent too much thinking about this...
By definition of "thinking," according to the dictionary,
there are at least eleven elements which apply to
the Propeller chip and this machine.
..Not bad for a definition intended for humans and not
machines..
What loosely bound definition are you talking about?
Do you have a problem if a sprinkler system has
some of the elements of human thinking?
I don't see any inaccurate statements in the quote.
What problem do you have with a Propeller chip that thinks?
I don't know about anyone else but I am a figment of your imagination.
Wait a sec.... Isn't figment of imagination redundant? or tautological? or something like that? In which case, what are you really?
This student essay addresses that question.
Isn't it time we stopped all this gibberish now? There are whole forums dedicated to it elsewhere.