• SteveKlinko
    185
    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?
  • creativesoul
    2.6k
    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.
  • creativesoul
    2.6k
    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.
  • SteveKlinko
    185
    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.
  • tom
    1.5k
    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.
  • SteveKlinko
    185
    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.
  • creativesoul
    2.6k
    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.
  • tom
    1.5k
    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.
  • SteveKlinko
    185
    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
    185
    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.
  • tom
    1.5k
    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".
  • Wayfarer
    6.2k
    Do you think Turing machines are subjects of experience?
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    4.1k
    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?
  • creativesoul
    2.6k
    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.
  • tom
    1.5k
    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.
  • tom
    1.5k
    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.
  • Wayfarer
    6.2k
    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.
  • SteveKlinko
    185
    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?
  • SteveKlinko
    185
    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.
  • tom
    1.5k
    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.
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.