Re: Is consciousness a process?
- From: Stephen Harris <cyberguard-1048@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 04:03:55 GMT
JGCASEY wrote:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
From: Don Geddis <d...@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:57:01 -0700
Local: Fri, Apr 20 2007 5:57 am
Subject: Re: consciousness
On Apr 20, 5:57 am, Don Geddis <d...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:JGCASEY <jgkjca...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 18 Apr 2007 17:0:
And it is convenient as it is *useful* just as weOh, but even I, a staunch computational materialist,
use words like MS Paint or MS Word to explain the
behavior of a machine. There is a difference
between the two that needs an explanation at some
level even if they are both nothing but electrical
signals in transistors.
agree with you here. We certainly want to understand
the difference between Paint and Word, just as we want
to understand the difference between the cognitive
capabilities of a rat vs. those of an adult human.
And well enough that we can actually reproduce the
important features of the human capabilities in an AI.
But if you realize that the difference between Paint
and Word is "just software", and in fact is independent
of the particular implementation hardware (Intel
Pentium vs. AMD Athelon vs. x86 emulation on an Alpha
chip) then you can stop worrying about seeking some
magic in the quantum superposition of microtubules in
neurons, and instead just work on software algorithms
for consciousness. The "hard problem of consciousness"
goes away.
By all means let's just work on the software algorithms
for I don't know what else you can do in AI.
Nor is saying consciousness is "nothing but" goingYes, you're right. Although it does exclude a large
to teach us much about consciousness.
number of commonsense but misdirected research efforts
(such as the Penrose stuff).
"Living" matter is arranged differently to non-livingYou've got to be careful there, if you think you have
matter. Atoms are in a complex state of dynamic
stability with other atoms unlike the atoms in a
non-living rock. Nothing "vitalistic" about it and
nothing "rock-like" either.
an ironclad definition of "alive" that can apply to any
entity. For sure, it's pretty easy to distinguish rocks
from humans, since they differ in so many ways. But if
you think you really understand this concept, then you
ought to be able (in principle, anyway) to build a
machine where I put an entity inside, and it tells me
whether the thing is "alive" or not.
What will it say about viruses, which are not capable
of reproduction without a separate host? What about
crystals, which grow by accreting addition organized
structure over time, but have no DNA or other genetic
blueprint?
The fact that there are entities at the extremes (humans,
rocks), doesn't prevent the core concept from really
being a shade-of-grey thing when you get to entities near
the boundary.
There's no sharp dividing line between "alive" things and
"not alive" things, even though there are obvious things
that are "a lot alive" and other obvious ones that are
"not at all alive".
The same is true of consciousness. Humans clearly have
a lot of this property, but that doesn't imply that it
must be a binary on/off thing, which you either have all
of or none of. And, like "alive", for things on the
border (such as current robot/computers), there are
reasonable arguments that these things are already "a
little bit" conscious, and that as they become more
complex, there will never be a sharp point at which
version N is "not conscious", but version N+1 suddenly
"is conscious". Instead, they're already a little bit
conscious, and as they improve they'll continue to get
more so, until eventually they even pass human levels
of consciousness and achieve a degree of consciousness
superior to that possessed by any human.
Now you are talking about "consciousness" as something
you have in varying amounts without actually saying what
this something is or why it exists.
What I call "being alive" is in fact "being conscious"
and I see that as a process which is actually taking
place or is not taking place. The amazing thing about
being alive is being conscious. It is not amazing that
molecules can evolve into complex dynamic processes.
When I am in a deep dream free sleep I think I am
essentially not conscious or alive even though my body
is still there and potentially can be reanimated like
a computer that is isn't running the "conscious" program.
When I was anaesthetized for a simple procedure I was
in the same state I believe I will be when I die except
in the anaesthetized state I could still be reanimated.
Now Curt wanted to know what was the difference between
a "conscious" process and one that was not "conscious".
That is the question but unlike Curt who declared there
was no difference (in which case the word conscious has
no meaning) I think there is.
This does not mean I think the difference is some kind
of magic non-physical vitalism anymore than I think that
msPaint requires a soul and msWord doesn't. It just means
I think in some way a "conscious" process is not the
same as an "unconscious" process.
So what is the difference? That is to be figured out.
For a start the contents of a conscious process can
potentially be reported. It most likely requires some
kind of working memory as I think it involves some
kind of ruminating over things (feedback of some kind)
which a simple or complex stimulus/response action
does not require. The contents of the conscious process
have an irrevocable quality, you cannot imagine that the
red object might in fact be green, but you can imagine
that there are three areas below not two with one
covering the other even though the last thought is the
most likely interpretation. (V.S. Ramachandran).
Be careful about using conscious to mean being awake,
where you mean aware, and consciousness as a process
which generates an emergent entity from the lower-level
description of the brain in terms of neural synapses.
The unconscious part of the brain filters input into the
conscious awareness. Phrases like, she lost consciousness
should be, he lost awareness because if you don't have
consciousness it means your brain has no signals, it is
dead, not asleep where it still generates frequencies.
.
- References:
- Is consciousness a process?
- From: JGCASEY
- Is consciousness a process?
- Prev by Date: Re: A Touch of Thermo
- Next by Date: Re: Jeff Hawkins: Why Can't A Computer Be More Like A Brain?
- Previous by thread: Is consciousness a process?
- Next by thread: Re: Is consciousness a process?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
