What is the Red experience? What does it consist of? Apple pies consist of their ingredients. What are the ingredients of a Red experience? — creativesoul

Yes that is the question. If Red is something that exists in Physical Space then it has to be made out of Matter or Energy or some aspect of Space itself. But Red probably does not exist in Physical Space. We might say it exists in Mind Space or Conscious Space. But Red has a Property of Redness. Redness doesn't exist in Physical Space but only in Conscious Space. How do we explain that?

Well that's a very problematic framework in my opinion. I wouldn't explain any of it like that. I actually argue against it on several different levels.

However, honoring the framework and therefore attempting to stay within it, 'we' might say that Conscious Space exists within Physical Space.

What is the Red experience? What does it consist of? Apple pies consist of their ingredients. What are the ingredients of a Red experience?
— creativesoul
Yes that is the question. — SteveKlinko

It is worth noting that you've yet to have answered it. Odd. You talk about something as if it is a problem for my framework. I ask you what you're talking about, and you confirm the importance of the question and yet neglect to answer.

It is worth noting that you've yet to have answered it. Odd. You talk about something as if it is a problem for my framework. I ask you what you're talking about, and you confirm the importance of the question and yet neglect to answer. — creativesoul

Here's what you have said:

Consciousness is a chimera, residue stemming from a gross misunderstanding of what it is to be human - as opposed to just being an animal. It is not an opposite situation. It is a comparitive one. The only difference is complexity of thought and belief.

Get thought and belief right, and the 'problem' between conscious experience and physiological sensory perception(brain) is solved(dissolved) as an unintended consequence. — creativesoul

What is the Red experience? What does it consist of? Apple pies consist of their ingredients. What are the ingredients of a Red experience? — creativesoul

I thought the discussion was about the Hard Problem being solved by your framework. The question is the Hard Problem. You think it's solved. I say nobody knows the answer yet. Of course I don't have an answer to the Hard Problem. You have to recognize that there at least is a Hard Problem.

I thought the discussion was about the Hard Problem being solved by your framework. The question is the Hard Problem. You think it's solved. I say nobody knows the answer yet. Of course I don't have an answer to the Hard Problem. You have to recognize that there at least is a Hard Problem. — SteveKlinko

I thought is standard practice to deny the thing you can't explain, at least amon a sizeable minority of philosophers?

Anyway, it is also standard practice to deny scientific results, like the Church-Turing-Deutsch Principle (not to be confused with the Church-Turing Thesis) which tells us that consciousness is a software feature.

I thought is standard practice to deny the thing you can't explain, at least amon a sizeable minority of philosophers? — tom

"I thought" he had drifted from the topic.

Anyway, it is also standard practice to deny scientific results, like the Church-Turing-Deutsch Principle (not to be confused with the Church-Turing Thesis) which tells us that consciousness is a software feature[/quote]
This Principle does not explain how or show that Consciousness is a Software feature. It just says it is so, and assumes it for the rest of the analysis. The original intention of the Thesis was just to say that Physical Systems can be simulated by software. The Principle included some Speculation that presupposed that Consciousness was just a Physical Process. No Explanation just Speculation. Could be true but any kind of proof is missing.

I thought the discussion was about the Hard Problem being solved by your framework. The question is the Hard Problem. You think it's solved. I say nobody knows the answer yet. Of course I don't have an answer to the Hard Problem. You have to recognize that there at least is a Hard Problem. — SteveKlinko

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.

This Principle does not explain how or show that Consciousness is a Software feature. It just says it is so, and assumes it for the rest of the analysis. The original intention of the Thesis was just to say that Physical Systems can be simulated by software. The Principle included some Speculation that presupposed that Consciousness was just a Physical Process. No Explanation just Speculation. Could be true but any kind of proof is missing. — SteveKlinko

The Principle does not "just say it is so". The CTD Principle does not mention consciousness at all.

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.

The Principle does not "just say it is so". The CTD Principle does not mention consciousness at all. — tom

Ok. So if the Principle itself doesn't say anything about Consciousness how can it tell us that Consciousness is a Software feature? I guess I am missing your point.

Ok. So if the Principle itself doesn't say anything about Consciousness how can it tell us that Consciousness is a Software feature? I guess I am missing your point. — SteveKlinko

The Church-Turing-Deutsch Principle tells us (proves based on known physics) that all computationally universal devices are equivalent.

Now, there is no proof that the human brain is computationally universal, but there are extremely strong arguments to support this. The human brain not only instantiates a mind, but is capable of language, knowledge creation etc. Just visit a university library, then formulate an argument that the brain is not universal, that it is restricted somehow. i.e. that it is less than a laptop computer.

Since the brain, and computers are universal, then what one can do, the others also can. This is entirely independent of the particular physics that underlies the design or evolution of the device.

The clear implication of this, is that any abstraction instantiated on a universal computer cannot be a consequence of the particular physics. By extension, features of such abstractions, such as self-awareness, cannot be properties of the physics, they must be properties of the abstraction.

Thus the "Hard Problem" is solved. We now only need to solve the "Hard Problem 2.0".

Do you think Turing machines are subjects of experience?

The Church-Turing-Deutsch Principle tells us (proves based on known physics) that all computationally universal devices are equivalent. — tom

Equivalent in what way, they are all computational universal devices?

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

I don't think you understand. Have fun.

Do you think Turing machines are subjects of experience? — Wayfarer

Ignoring the fact that Turing machines don't exist - they are a mathematical abstraction - and assuming by "subjects of experience" you mean something like ""possess qualia", then the answer, as I explained above, is No. The same argument also applies to real brains.

Equivalent in what way, they are all computational universal devices? — Metaphysician Undercover

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.

Ignoring the fact that Turing machines don't exist - they are a mathematical abstraction - and assuming by "subjects of experience" you mean something like ""possess qualia", then the answer, as I explained above, is No. The same argument also applies to real brains. — tom

Well, real brains do exist, but only in people, who are indeed subjects of experience.

The Church-Turing-Deutsch Principle tells us (proves based on known physics) that all computationally universal devices are equivalent.

Now, there is no proof that the human brain is computationally universal, but there are extremely strong arguments to support this. The human brain not only instantiates a mind, but is capable of language, knowledge creation etc. Just visit a university library, then formulate an argument that the brain is not universal, that it is restricted somehow. i.e. that it is less than a laptop computer.

Since the brain, and computers are universal, then what one can do, the others also can. This is entirely independent of the particular physics that underlies the design or evolution of the device.

The clear implication of this, is that any abstraction instantiated on a universal computer cannot be a consequence of the particular physics. By extension, features of such abstractions, such as self-awareness, cannot be properties of the physics, they must be properties of the abstraction.

Thus the "Hard Problem" is solved. We now only need to solve the "Hard Problem 2.0". — tom

The fact that the Human Mind created the Laptop would indicate that the Human Mind is greater than the Laptop.

First of all a Brain is nothing like a Computer. A Brain has Trillions of simultaneous Neural Firings at any instant of time. A 4 core Computer can only do 4 things at any instant of time. So a 4 core Computer in effect only has 4 Neurons. At each instant any of the cores can be executing: Add, Sub, Mult, Div, Shift Left, Shift Right, AND, OR, XOR, Move Data , and etc. Which one of these operations would create Consciousness in a Computer? Or even which 4 operations executing simultaneously in the 4 cores would create Consciousness. To somehow try to say that a Brain and a Computer are computationally equivalent (both Universal) seems kind of ridiculous. They are Apples and Oranges. I would go so far as to say a Brain isn't even really a Computational Machine. It is something different. Brains create Computational Machines because Brains are not Computational Machines.

What do you mean by Hard Problem 2.0?

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
I don't think you understand. Have fun. — creativesoul

I truly don't understand what you are saying. If you don't want to continue the discussion then maybe you should not be on discussion Forums.

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.

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? — SteveKlinko

Let's get computational universality under our belts first.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

"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.

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.