POTM Re: consciousness

Nominated

On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 23:37:50 +1000, John Wilkins wrote:

Dick <remdickhm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 00:03:45 +1000, j.wilkins1@xxxxxxxxx (John Wilkins)
wrote:

Dick <remdickhm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 20:27:25 +1000, j.wilkins1@xxxxxxxxx (John
Wilkins) wrote:

Dale Kelly <dale.kelly@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 14:57:06 +1000, John Wilkins wrote:

It's a process of processing


your premise is your conclusion

Not in this case. It's a matter of realisng that there are processes
of processes (like there are rates of change in rates of change).
This is not circularity but metalogic.

And with what did you "choose" to believe your "metalogic"?

Umm, could you rephrase the question?

The form of argument is a choice, isn't it?

We have so many components of our behavior (speech is behavior) that
involve choice. Sometimes we even review our choices in our
"consciousness" before putting the thought into action. Sometimes I
even edit what I write! <g>

In the face/vase choice, what is choosing the form to perceive? What
values change allowing the alternative image to emerge?

I know there are no answers. Vision, like thought, relies on forming
test forms, then accepting the best fit. My screen saver uses a data
base of art. When I look at a picture without my glasses, I often only
see a blur of color at first, then something in my head, comes up with a
trial picture. Once a recognizable choice is made, details appear even
though my eyes are still out of focus. Sometimes, the first choice is
discarded for a second, much like the face/vase image.

Words are containers for ideas. When you ask me to restate a question,
assuming an honest question, I must try to put together a new set of
words to contain the idea I am trying to express. Hopefully, you will
"try" (choice of intent) to form a meaningful interpretation.

A recent book has a title something like: It is not what I say, but
what you hear.

I'm sorry but I still cannnot see any connection between what I wrote and
what you said. I suspect you do not understand what I wrote.

Metalogic in this case means that there are levels of things that refer to
something. I said that there is a process of processes:

<bq>
Dale Kelly <dale.kelly@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 19:19:31 -0700, Greg G. wrote:

A computer might if it was
programmed to be conscious.


please show me a computer program that will make my computer conscious

Consciousness is what suitably elaborated information processing systems
with sufficiently high bandwidth interfaces with the real world *do*. It's
not a program, and it's not a thing. It's a process of processing.

<eq>

By this I meant that consciousness is what happens when you process inputs
from internal processes. That is, there are complex feedback loops that
mean that the neural system is able to "know" it's internal states, and
know the knowing, and so on. There is a physical limit to what can be done
here based on the number of neurons devoted to the tasks, and the overall
memory of the system, but basically there's nothing spooky about it.

Consciousness is what happens when a system knows its own states.

Now knowing that you know something is where the metalogic comes in.
Ordinarily a computer has no higher level knowledge of this kind. If a
computer represents a situation in a state, it merely does this. For a
limited kind of consciousness to come in, it would need to model it
knowing the situation as well as modelling the situation.

As to choosing, choices are forced by information and the nature of the
knowing system. If a computer is in a state IF A THEN B, and A obtains,
then it "chooses" B. If a human being is trained or enculturated into some
response in a given context, then it will "choose" the response.

We can reason, but most of our rational choices are forced by our
experiences and the nature of our brain states.


.