• SteveKlinko
    199
    The fact that the Human Mind created the Laptop would indicate that the Human Mind is greater than the Laptop. — SteveKlinko
    That's like saying Microsoft Word is greater than your laptop. Comparisons don't work unless you are comparing things of the same type.
    tom
    I don't get your point here. Microsoft Word didn't create a Laptop.

    First of all a Brain is nothing like a Computer. A Brain has Trillions of simultaneous Neural Firings at any instant of time. — SteveKlinko
    It is proved, that under currently known laws of physics, there is no such thing as a physical system that can undergo any dynamics that cannot be exactly emulated on a universal computer. This means that nothing can exist in nature which can out-compute a universal computer in any fundamental way.

    So, either the brain is a universal computer, or it is less than one.

    This link takes me to David Deutsch's talk which begins at ~2:50:00 into the Dirac Medal Ceremony. Very interesting talk about the discovery of his principle.

    What do you mean by Hard Problem 2.0?
    tom
    Good video. Gave me new insight into Universal Computing. I thought it was about Computers, but I see a Brain and a piece of writing paper could serve the same purpose but slower. How does any of this solve the Hard Problem and leave a Hard Problem 2.0 to be solved? Now can you tell me what the Hard Problem 2.0 is?
  • tom
    1.5k
    Good video. Gave me new insight into Universal Computing. I thought it was about Computers, but I see a Brain and a piece of writing paper could serve the same purpose but slower. How does any of this solve the Hard Problem and leave a Hard Problem 2.0 to be solved? Now can you tell me what the Hard Problem 2.0 is?SteveKlinko

    Universal Computing is about physics, the way reality is structured, how information flows, and also about computers.

    If we accept for the sake of argument, that the brain is a computationally universal physical structure, like Babbage's Analytic Engine, or a PC, then anything the brain can do, so can these other objects. The implication of this is that consciousness cannot be a material property, or be associated with any particular physics.

    The Hard Problem of Consciousness refers to the problem of explaining how conscious phenomena, qualia, relate to physical phenomena. Well, the implication from computational universality is that qualia cannot relate to any particular physical structure, and thus the Hard Problem is dismissed.

    The Other Hard Problem (Hard Problem 2.0) is how do abstract entities obtain qualia. Qualia are a software feature rather than a hardware emergence.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    4.2k
    There is no such thing as a universal computer that can do something that other universal computers cannot.

    There is no such thing as a physical system that can undergo any dynamics that cannot be exactly simulated on a universal computer.
    tom

    So a "universal computer" is a fictional thing, defined as a computational device which can simulate the dynamics of any possible physical system? Since it's fictional, how do we even know that such a devise is possible? And if we do not know whether such a device is even possible, of what use is the assumption of such a thing?
  • tom
    1.5k
    So a "universal computer" is a fictional thing, defined as a computational device which can simulate the dynamics of any possible physical system? Since it's fictional, how do we even know that such a devise is possible? And if we do not know whether such a device is even possible, of what use is the assumption of such a thing?Metaphysician Undercover

    The whole point is that Universal Computers are real devices, which can exist according to known physics.

    We are painfully aware of the classical restriction of the Universal Computer - they are everywhere. Classical and quantum computers have the same computational repertoire, it is just that certain tasks may be performed exponentially quicker on a q-machine than a c-machine. Emulating the human brain is not one of those tasks - the human brain is a c-machine.

    It should be noted that massive academic and engineering industries have resulted from the "Deutsch Principle" paper of the 1980s.

    Universal computers are real. I am typing on one.
  • SteveKlinko
    199
    Universal Computing is about physics, the way reality is structured, how information flows, and also about computers.

    If we accept for the sake of argument, that the brain is a computationally universal physical structure, like Babbage's Analytic Engine, or a PC, then anything the brain can do, so can these other objects. The implication of this is that consciousness cannot be a material property, or be associated with any particular physics.
    tom
    If you are saying that Consciousness is something outside of known Scientific knowledge, then I agree.

    The Hard Problem of Consciousness refers to the problem of explaining how conscious phenomena, qualia, relate to physical phenomena. Well, the implication from computational universality is that qualia cannot relate to any particular physical structure, and thus the Hard Problem is dismissed.tom
    Seems like there is a relationship between Neural Activity in certain Brain structures that is Correlated with Qualia. So could you say a little more about what you mean by this?

    The Other Hard Problem (Hard Problem 2.0) is how do abstract entities obtain qualia. Qualia are a software feature rather than a hardware emergence.tom
    This just sounds like the original Hard Problem. When you say it's a Software feature I am lost. What Software are you talking about?
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    4.2k
    Universal computers are real. I am typing on one.tom

    I thought you said that a universal computer could emulate any possible physical system, and that it's impossible that one universal computer could do something that another could not. Are you claiming that you're using a computer that can emulate any physical system?
  • bert1
    122
    If we accept for the sake of argument, that the brain is a computationally universal physical structure, like Babbage's Analytic Engine, or a PC, then anything the brain can do, so can these other objects. The implication of this is that consciousness cannot be a material property, or be associated with any particular physics.tom

    There is an assumption of functionalism here, that consciousness is something a brain (or whatever) does. We're not all functionalists, and functionalism hasn't been shown.
  • tom
    1.5k
    I thought you said that a universal computer could emulate any possible physical system, and that it's impossible that one universal computer could do something that another could not. Are you claiming that you're using a computer that can emulate any physical system?Metaphysician Undercover

    Yes, but it would need more memory and a lot of time.
  • creativesoul
    2.8k
    "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" are the names of that which was found to be missing from recent conventional model.

    "Consciousness" has no such origen.
  • creativesoul
    2.8k
    The problem is the way it's been talked about...

    Folk are saying "consciousness" but have no clue what it is. What other words do we use like that? The problem is dissolved by better language use.
    — creativesoul
    Science talks about Dark Energy and Dark Matter like that, You do not get closer to understanding these things if you just use different language. Dark Energy, Dark Matter, and Consciousness are true unsolved mysteries of Science.
    SteveKlinko

    The problem is the language use. Some frameworks are ill suited for taking proper account of that which exists in it's entirety prior to our discovery of it. Pre and/or non-linguistic mental ongoings are one such thing. Consciousness consists, in part at least, of precisely such things. Since consciousness requires(is existentially dependent upon) pre and/or no linguistic mental ongoings, if we get those wrong we have no choice but to get consciousness wrong as well.

    That' part of what I'm getting at here. Here's a bit more...

    It is the user of "consciousness" who bears the burden of clear definition lest the resulting conception is muddled. There is nothing in conversation about consciousness that cannot be adequately accounted for and subsequently elaborated upon by a better framework. All of which is sure to sharpen one's understanding. This is all the product of better language use.

    That is to say that all conceptions of consciousness point to that which can be better taken account of in when we talk in terms of thought and belief(pre and/or non-linguistic mental ongoings). Not all thought and belief are pre and/or non-linguistic, but that's an aside.

    All consciousness consists of thought and belief. Not all thought and belief requires consciousness. Thus, consciousness is existentially dependent upon thought and belief, but not necessarily the other way around, although some complex thought and belief are virtually indistinguishable from consciousness. Thought and belief begin simply and grow in complexity.

    Get thought and belief right, and our conception of consciousness will be better as an inevitable result.
  • SteveKlinko
    199
    The problem is the language use. Some frameworks are ill suited for taking proper account of that which exists in it's entirety prior to our discovery of it. Pre and/or non-linguistic mental ongoings are one such thing. Consciousness consists, in part at least, of precisely such things. Since consciousness requires(is existentially dependent upon) pre and/or no linguistic mental ongoings, if we get those wrong we have no choice but to get consciousness wrong as well.

    That' part of what I'm getting at here. Here's a bit more...

    It is the user of "consciousness" who bears the burden of clear definition lest the resulting conception is muddled. There is nothing in conversation about consciousness that cannot be adequately accounted for and subsequently elaborated upon by a better framework. All of which is sure to sharpen one's understanding. This is all the product of better language use.

    That is to say that all conceptions of consciousness point to that which can be better taken account of in when we talk in terms of thought and belief(pre and/or non-linguistic mental ongoings). Not all thought and belief are pre and/or non-linguistic, but that's an aside.

    All consciousness consists of thought and belief. Not all thought and belief requires consciousness. Thus, consciousness is existentially dependent upon thought and belief, but not necessarily the other way around, although some complex thought and belief are virtually indistinguishable from consciousness. Thought and belief begin simply and grow in complexity.

    Get thought and belief right, and our conception of consciousness will be better as an inevitable result.
    creativesoul
    I agree with you about language up to a point. I try not to talk about Consciousness in general but instead I like to use language that talks about particular aspects of Consciousness. Specifically I am interested in how we See. I believe Science has shown us what happens inside the Brain when we See. Science can point to the exact areas in the Brain where Neural Activity happens when we See. But I like to narrow this down even more to recognizing the particular Neural Activity that happens when we have an Experience of the color Red. Science may know what Neural Activity happens when we See the color Red but Science knows nothing about how the Conscious experience of Red happens. This is the Hard Problem of Consciousness. I like to encapsulate the Hard Problem in a question. I post this question all the time on the forums but it is a central question that needs to be asked over and over ... Given:

    1) Neural Activity for Red happens
    2) A Conscious Red experience happens

    How does 2 happen when 1 happens? The answer to this question must include an understanding of what 2 is in the first place.

    Would you say there is something wrong with the language used to describe the problem? What language would you use to describe the problem?
  • wellwisher
    161
    Many people do not seem to understand the difference between human consciousness and a machine. A computer can memorize, store and repeat data faster than any human. A computer can do math calculations faster than any human. However, neither of these things make the computer conscious. If you can read a book in an hour and know it by heart, a computer can do that too, but this alone will not make the computer be considered conscious or AI. This act, although impressive, is really a human acting like a machine, with the machine setting the standard. This is not intelligence, or else that alone would make the computer super intelligent.

    Consciousness requires a different type of hardware or else computer would be naturally conscious based on any hardware. I have explained how neuron design; memory, is based on the rest state of a neuron being at highest potential due to ion pumping and exchange. Computer memory is designed to be at lower potential. This makes a big difference, since a high potential starting point can meander in new ways driven by the lowering of free energy, apart from programming logic. It follows energy and matter logic as well as computer logic. The meandering path of the river, is not based on any program in the river. This is connected to something larger; laws of physics that are same in all references.

    Another key element to consciousness is the hydrogen bond, such as occurs between water molecules, protein, RNA and the DNA and all combinations thereof.

    The hydrogen bond is an odd duck, since it shows both polar and covalent bonding character. In essence, the hydrogen bond it is a natural binary switch. Observations in water show that water exists in both high and low density clusters. The difference in density is connected to whether the hydrogen bonding switches are more to the polar; higher density, or covalent side; lower density, of the switch. The polar side is also slanted more heavily to the electrostatic force, while the covalent side is more slanted toward the magnetic force. The hydrogen bond can break the unified electromagnetic force, into its two separated components, based on the switch setting. This adds new things.

    The hydrogen bonding switch is way more advanced, than any semi-conductor switch. The main reason is the two extreme switch settings are different in terms of physical properties, allowing the switch setting to impact the matter around itself, differently for each setting.

    The polar side has higher enthalpy, higher enthalpy but less volume (more density).The covalent side has lower entropy and lower enthalpy but occupies more volume. Chemical changes near the switch can flip the switch, so there is equilibrium. Whereas, a pure information transfer via the switches can impact the physical environment.

    When we think, the information transfer through hydrogen bonding switches, muscles the molecules causing physical changes that create memory. The line between information and matter gets blurred. If we add to this, the high energy rest neurons, that meander potential energy, as this energy moves, hydrogen bonding translates that to natural and spontaneous information based on material logic.
  • SteveKlinko
    199
    But what is the Experience of the color Red?
  • Arne
    295
    Dude, your reduction of mind to brain and soul to body is the essence of materialism.
  • creativesoul
    2.8k
    I agree with you about language up to a point. I try not to talk about Consciousness in general but instead I like to use language that talks about particular aspects of Consciousness. Specifically I am interested in how we See. I believe Science has shown us what happens inside the Brain when we See. Science can point to the exact areas in the Brain where Neural Activity happens when we See. But I like to narrow this down even more to recognizing the particular Neural Activity that happens when we have an Experience of the color Red. Science may know what Neural Activity happens when we See the color Red but Science knows nothing about how the Conscious experience of Red happens. This is the Hard Problem of Consciousness. I like to encapsulate the Hard Problem in a question. I post this question all the time on the forums but it is a central question that needs to be asked over and over ... Given:

    1) Neural Activity for Red happens
    2) A Conscious Red experience happens

    How does 2 happen when 1 happens? The answer to this question must include an understanding of what 2 is in the first place.

    Would you say there is something wrong with the language used to describe the problem? What language would you use to describe the problem?
    SteveKlinko

    Yes. The same I've been using. Normal parlance does just fine. The problem is the language use itself.

    The very notion of "A Conscious Red experience" is problematic. It's a chimera. There is no such thing.
  • SteveKlinko
    199
    Yes. The same I've been using. Normal parlance does just fine. The problem is the language use itself.

    The very notion of "A Conscious Red experience" is problematic. It's a chimera. There is no such thing
    creativesoul
    I think I understand now. You are saying that there is no such thing as the Conscious Red experience. Do you not See the color Red? If you do then it is real. It exists in what I like to call Conscious Space. It does not exist in Physical Space. The Redness of the Red is a Property that only exists in Conscious Space. There is no Redness in Physical Space. Red Physical Light has Wavelength as a Property but does not in fact have Redness as a Property. The Conscious Red that you See has Redness as a Property but does not have Wavelength as a Property. The Conscious Red Light is a Surrogate for the Physical Red Light. In general our Conscious Light is how we Detect Physical Light. Physical Light does not Look like anything. We only know our Conscious Light. So the Conscious Red experience is not a Chimera, but rather it is just something outside of normal Scientific knowledge. But it could become part of Normal Scientific knowledge if we could understand it a whole lot more.
  • wellwisher
    161


    When memory is formed, sensory input is combined with an emotional tag, by aspects of the limbic system, and then written to the cerebral matter. If we see red, this input data is stored as visual data with an emotional tag. If we see red again, this will trigger previous memories, which will also trigger the emotional tag, that had been added.

    Since memory has both sensory content and emotions, we can trigger memory from either side. We can think of a feeling and images will appear in our mind. If we feel hungry, we will start to imagine food we would like to eat. Or one can think of an event; wedding, and emotions will appear.

    In the case of the color red, this triggers previous visual memories, which triggers emotions. The emotions can then trigger other memories; red sports car, with some of these memories triggering related emotions; desire, etc., It is this chain reaction reverberation in memory that creates the dynamics in awareness we call conscious. The stimulus becomes alive to us.

    In tradition, red is a warm color due to how fire is red. This is the same sensory color input and will get a very similar tag. Fire is one of those dramatic primal memories which will reverberate when we see red. This can bring us to other places, separate in space and time; old memories, from which two references appear so consciousness can isolate itself.
  • tom
    1.5k
    I think I understand now. You are saying that there is no such thing as the Conscious Red experience. Do you not See the color Red? If you do then it is real. It exists in what I like to call Conscious Space. It does not exist in Physical Space.SteveKlinko

    I think you might be assuming too much here. When a robot sees red, the seeing-red is definitely occurring in physical space

    The Redness of the Red is a Property that only exists in Conscious Space. There is no Redness in Physical Space. Red Physical Light has Wavelength as a Property but does not in fact have Redness as a Property.SteveKlinko

    Again, in a robot, when it sees red, certain physical changes happen in its circuitry that correspond to red. You could point to the circuits and say, "Look, the robot is seeing red!" but there would be no consciousness there.

    The Conscious Red Light is a Surrogate for the Physical Red Light.SteveKlinko

    Maybe, but is not the quale of red more in the nature of what-it-is-like to see red, rather than a surrogate for photons of a certain energy?
  • SteveKlinko
    199
    When memory is formed, sensory input is combined with an emotional tag, by aspects of the limbic system, and then written to the cerebral matter. If we see red, this input data is stored as visual data with an emotional tag. If we see red again, this will trigger previous memories, which will also trigger the emotional tag, that had been added.

    Since memory has both sensory content and emotions, we can trigger memory from either side. We can think of a feeling and images will appear in our mind. If we feel hungry, we will start to imagine food we would like to eat. Or one can think of an event; wedding, and emotions will appear.

    In the case of the color red, this triggers previous visual memories, which triggers emotions. The emotions can then trigger other memories; red sports car, with some of these memories triggering related emotions; desire, etc., It is this chain reaction reverberation in memory that creates the dynamics in awareness we call conscious. The stimulus becomes alive to us.

    In tradition, red is a warm color due to how fire is red. This is the same sensory color input and will get a very similar tag. Fire is one of those dramatic primal memories which will reverberate when we see red. This can bring us to other places, separate in space and time; old memories, from which two references appear so consciousness can isolate itself.
    wellwisher
    All this may be true. But the question remains: How do we See Red? A Memory of Red is just chemical modifications among the Neurons associated with the Memory. There is never any Red actually stored. So when the Memory is accessed there are only chemical changes that are detected. How do the chemical changes and all the Neural Activity get converted into the experience of Red? That is the Hard Problem of Consciousness. Also remember that when there is an Experience of Red then there is an Experiencer that has the Experience. This is also part of the Hard Problem.
  • SteveKlinko
    199
    I think I understand now. You are saying that there is no such thing as the Conscious Red experience. Do you not See the color Red? If you do then it is real. It exists in what I like to call Conscious Space. It does not exist in Physical Space. — SteveKlinko
    I think you might be assuming too much here. When a robot sees red, the seeing-red is definitely occurring in physical space
    tom
    Do you seriously think a Robot has a Conscious Red experience? I think you must know that a Robot is just a Computer that is processing numbers. The Human Brain processes signals but there is an extra processing stage that a Computer does not have. it is the stage where the Red experience is generated. We don't sense what our Neurons are doing but rather we interface through the Conscious stage of the Visual process.


    The Redness of the Red is a Property that only exists in Conscious Space. There is no Redness in Physical Space. Red Physical Light has Wavelength as a Property but does not in fact have Redness as a Property. — SteveKlinko
    Again, in a robot, when it sees red, certain physical changes happen in its circuitry that correspond to red. You could point to the circuits and say, "Look, the robot is seeing red!" but there would be no consciousness there.
    tom
    Ok I agree with this. But it sounds like you are saying something different in the comment above.

    The Conscious Red Light is a Surrogate for the Physical Red Light. — SteveKlinko
    Maybe, but is not the quale of red more in the nature of what-it-is-like to see red, rather than a surrogate for photons of a certain energy?
    tom
    The Quale is the Surrogate. I think saying Conscious Red Light is more descriptive than saying the Red Light Qualia. Sorry, it's my fault for using non standard Philosophical terminology.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.