Re: How would a computer know if it were conscious?
Hi Quentin, > "What is the kind of universe we must live in if the electromagnetic field > structure of the brain delivers qualia?" > > A. It is NOT the universe depicted by the qualia (atoma, molecules, > cells...). It is the universe whose innate capacity to deliver qualia is > taken advantage of when configureed like it appears when we use qualia > themselves to explore itcortical brain matter. (NOTE: Please do not > make the mistake that sensors - peripheral affect - are equivalent to > qualia.) I will only react to this... and I will deposit a large collection of weirdness for you to ponder Q. What is cortical brain matter ? Let us call our first candidate consistent with all the fatcs a monism made of MON_STUFF. We must give ourselves the latitude to consider various candidates. For the purposes it does not matter what it is. I will try and answer your questions by bringing in properties. So cortical brain matter is made of a collection of MON_STUFF. Not atoms. Atoms are organised MON_STUFF. Quarks are organised MON_STUFF. The MON_STUFF I choose, that seems to deliver everything I need and is the simplest possible choice: is 'the fluctuation'. Q. Does it exists by itself? No. It is nested MON_STUFF all the way down. It is intrinsically dynamic and fleeting. Anything made of MON_STUFF is persistent organisational structure within a massive collection of fleeting change. Exactly like the shapes in the water coming out of a garden hose. There is a critical minimum collection of it, from which all subsequent structure is derived. That minimum is created like collections of turbulent water molecules breaks off and self-sustains a eddy/vortex once a critical threshold is reached. Ultimately there is no need to prescribe an ultimate minimum 'atom-ish' minimal size MON_STUFF fluctuation to predict qualia. Someone else's problem. I don't need to solve that. The fluctuation model works...that's all I need to progress. Q. if so, what is it composed of (matter ?) ? Well it's not, so I don't have to fall into this logical hole. Q. what is matter ? Hierarchically organised persistent but intrinsically dynamic (continually refreshed) structures of MON_STUFF Q. what is brain? I think we already did this. Q why cortical brain matter generates qualia ? There is one single simple fundamental principle at the heart of it: "At all scales and all locations, when you 'be' any MON_STUFF the 'view of the rest of the universe' is delivered innately as 'NOT_ME'". Call it the COLIN principle of universal subjectivity" I don;t care...like the fluctuation This is a simple as it gets. Q why it must be so ? With the fundamental principle that perspective view at all scales literally is the source of qualia, the whole reasoning changes from one of WHY to one of WHERE/WHENwhich is what you ask. It is question of visability. It is 'like' 'NOT_ELECTRON' to be a collection of MON_STUFF behaving electronly. That is not 'about' being an electron. It IS an electron. Not only that, there is a blizzard of the little blighters with no collective 'story' to tell. Their collective summated scene is ZERO. Q Is qualia a dependance of cortical brain matter or the inverse ? If I get you correctly it's 'INVERSE'. Q. is qualia responsible of what looks like cortical brain matter? It's not 'responsible' in that it doesn't 'cause brain matter'. Qualia present a visual scene - a representation. In the scene we see brain matter. Q or is it cortical brain matter that makes feel qualia which in turns ask question about cortical brain matter ? No. Cortical brain material is an appearance of MON_STUFF created by special MON_STUFF doing the 'appearance dance'. When it does that dance ... (the cortical grey matter membrane dance)... it creates an appearance of atoms, molcules, cells, tissue because these are persistent nested structures of MON_STUFF doing the atom dance, the molecule dance, the cell dance. etc..etc. As weird and hard to assimilate as it soundsIt all comes down to the two simplest possible basic premises: 1) A universe consisting of a massive number of one generic elemental process, the fluctuation. 2) A universe in which the perspective view from the point of view of 'being' ME, an elemental fluctuation, is 'NOT ME' (the rest of the universe). The ecitable cell dance is the only dance that has it's own story independent of the underlying MON_STUFF organisational layers. That is the only place where the net exertions of MON_STUFF have nothing to do with any other dance. That is the organisational level where the visibility finally manifests to non-zero...why neural soma are fat - it's all about signal to noise ratio. weirdness time over. Gotta go. Colin Hales --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this gro
Re: How would a computer know if it were conscious?
Colin Hales wrote: > Hi, > > RUSSEL >> All I can say is that I don't understand your distinction. You have > introduced a new term "necessary primitive" - what on earth is that? But > I'll let this pass, it probably isn't important. > > COLIN > Oh no you don't!! It matters. Bigtime... > > Take away the necessary primitive: no 'qualititative novelty' > Take away the water molecules: No lake. > Take away the bricks, no building > Take away the atoms: no molecules > Take away the cells: no human > Take away the humans: no humanity > Take away the planets: no solar system > Take away the X: No emergent Y > Take away the QUALE: No qualia > > Magical emergence is when but claim Y exists but you can't > identify an X. Such as: > > Take away the X: No qualia > > but thenyou claim qualia result from 'information complexity' or > 'computation' or 'function' and you fail to say what X can be. Nobody can. > > You can't use an object derived using the contents of > consciousness(observation) to explain why there are any contents of > consciousness(observation) at all. It is illogical. (see the wigner quote > below). I find the general failure to recognise this brute reality very > exasperating. Prepare to be exasperated then. I see no contradiction in explaining the existence of observation by using a theory derived from observation. This is what we do. There is no logical inference from observations to our theory of observation - it could have come to us in a dream or a revelation or a random quantum fluctuation. If the theory then passes the usual scientific tests, we can say it provides an explanation of observation. Of course there are other senses of "explanation". One might be to explain how you know that such a thing as observation exists. I'd say just like I know about anything else - I observe it. Brent Meeker > > COLIN > >> So this means that in a computer abstraction. >>> d(KNOWLEDGE(t)) >>> --- is already part of KNOWLEDGE(t) >>> dt > > RUSSEL >> No its not. dK/dt is generated by the interaction of the rules with the > environment. > > No. No. No. There is the old assumption thing again. > > How, exactly, are you assuming that the agent 'interacts' with the > environment? This is the world external to the agent, yes?. Do not say > "through sensory measurement", because that will not do. There are an > infinite number of universes that could give rise to the same sensory > measurements. We are elctromagnetic objects. Basic EM theory. EM is linear. You can't even make subluminal matter from EM, much less atoms and people. >Proven > mathematical theorems. The solutions are not unique for an isolated > system. > > Circularity.Circularity.Circularity. > > There is _no interaction with the environment_ except for that provided by > the qualia as an 'as-if' proxy for the environment. The origins of an > ability to access the distal external world in support of such a proxy is > mysterious but moot. It can and does happen, and that ability must come > about because we live in the kind of universe that supports that > possibility. The mysteriousness of it is OUR problem. > > RUSSEL >> Evolutionary algorithms are highly effective >> information pumps, pumping information from the environment into the > genome, or whatever representation you're using to store the solutions. > > COLIN > But then we're not talking about merely being 'highly effective' > in a target problem domain, are we? We are talking about proving > consciousness in a machine. I agree - evolutionary algoritms are great > things... they are just irrelevant to this discussion. > > COLIN > My scientific claim is that the electromagnetic field structure >>> literally the third person view of qualia. Eh? Electromagnetic field of what? The brain? If so, do you think > that >>> chemical potentiation plays no role at all in qualia? >>> Chemical potentiation IS electric field. > > RUSSEL >> Bollocks. A hydrogen molecule and an oxygen atom held 1m apart have > chemical potential, but there is precious little electric field > > I am talking about the membrane and you are talking atoms so I guess we > missed somehow...anywayThe only 'potentiation' that really matters in > my model is that which looks like an 'action potential' longitudinally > traversing dendrite/soma/axon membrane as a whole. > > Notwithstanding this > > The chemical potentiation at the atomic level is entirely an EM phenomenon > mediated by QM boundaries (virtual photons in support of the shell > structure, also EM). It is a sustained 'well/energy minimaum' in the EM > field structureYou think there is such a 'thing' as potential? There > is no such thing - there is something we describe as 'EM field'. Nothing > else. Within that metaphor is yet another even more specious metaphor: > Potential is an (as yet unrealised) propensity of the field at a > particular place to do work on a charge if it were put i
Re: How would a computer know if it were conscious?
Hi, RUSSEL > All I can say is that I don't understand your distinction. You have introduced a new term "necessary primitive" - what on earth is that? But I'll let this pass, it probably isn't important. COLIN Oh no you don't!! It matters. Bigtime... Take away the necessary primitive: no 'qualititative novelty' Take away the water molecules: No lake. Take away the bricks, no building Take away the atoms: no molecules Take away the cells: no human Take away the humans: no humanity Take away the planets: no solar system Take away the X: No emergent Y Take away the QUALE: No qualia Magical emergence is when but claim Y exists but you can't identify an X. Such as: Take away the X: No qualia but thenyou claim qualia result from 'information complexity' or 'computation' or 'function' and you fail to say what X can be. Nobody can. You can't use an object derived using the contents of consciousness(observation) to explain why there are any contents of consciousness(observation) at all. It is illogical. (see the wigner quote below). I find the general failure to recognise this brute reality very exasperating. COLIN > So this means that in a computer abstraction. >> d(KNOWLEDGE(t)) >> --- is already part of KNOWLEDGE(t) >> dt RUSSEL > No its not. dK/dt is generated by the interaction of the rules with the environment. No. No. No. There is the old assumption thing again. How, exactly, are you assuming that the agent 'interacts' with the environment? This is the world external to the agent, yes?. Do not say "through sensory measurement", because that will not do. There are an infinite number of universes that could give rise to the same sensory measurements. We are elctromagnetic objects. Basic EM theory. Proven mathematical theorems. The solutions are not unique for an isolated system. Circularity.Circularity.Circularity. There is _no interaction with the environment_ except for that provided by the qualia as an 'as-if' proxy for the environment. The origins of an ability to access the distal external world in support of such a proxy is mysterious but moot. It can and does happen, and that ability must come about because we live in the kind of universe that supports that possibility. The mysteriousness of it is OUR problem. RUSSEL > Evolutionary algorithms are highly effective > information pumps, pumping information from the environment into the genome, or whatever representation you're using to store the solutions. COLIN But then we're not talking about merely being 'highly effective' in a target problem domain, are we? We are talking about proving consciousness in a machine. I agree - evolutionary algoritms are great things... they are just irrelevant to this discussion. COLIN >> >> My scientific claim is that the electromagnetic field structure >> literally the third person view of qualia. >> > Eh? Electromagnetic field of what? The brain? If so, do you think that >> chemical potentiation plays no role at all in qualia? >> Chemical potentiation IS electric field. RUSSEL > Bollocks. A hydrogen molecule and an oxygen atom held 1m apart have chemical potential, but there is precious little electric field I am talking about the membrane and you are talking atoms so I guess we missed somehow...anywayThe only 'potentiation' that really matters in my model is that which looks like an 'action potential' longitudinally traversing dendrite/soma/axon membrane as a whole. Notwithstanding this The chemical potentiation at the atomic level is entirely an EM phenomenon mediated by QM boundaries (virtual photons in support of the shell structure, also EM). It is a sustained 'well/energy minimaum' in the EM field structureYou think there is such a 'thing' as potential? There is no such thing - there is something we describe as 'EM field'. Nothing else. Within that metaphor is yet another even more specious metaphor: Potential is an (as yet unrealised) propensity of the field at a particular place to do work on a charge if it were put it there. You can place that charge in it and get a number out of an electrophysiological probe... and 'realise' the work (modify the fields) itself- but there's no 'thing' that 'is' the potential. Not only that: The fields are HUGE > 10^11 volts/meter. Indeed the entrapment of protons in the nucleus requires the strong nuclear force to overcome truly stupendous repulsive fields. I know beause I am quite literally doing tests in molecular dynamics simulations of the E-M field at the single charge level. The fields are massive and change at staggeringly huge rates, especially at the atomic level. HoweverTheir net level in the vicinity of 20Angstroms away falls off dramatically. But this is not the vicinity of any 'chemical reaction'. And again I say : there is nothing else there but charge and its fields. When you put your hand on a table the reason it doesn't pass through it even though table and hand are mostly space ...is because elect
Re: How would a computer know if it were conscious?
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 10:02:28AM +1000, Colin Hales wrote: > > Hi, > I am going to have to be a bit targetted in my responses I am a TAD > whelmed at the moment. > > COLIN > >> 4) Belief in 'magical emergence' qualitative novelty of a kind > utterly unrelated to the componentry. > > RUSSEL > > The latter clause refers to "emergence" (without the "magical" > > qualifier), and it is impossible IMHO to have creativity without > emergence. > > COLIN > The distinction between 'magical emergence' and 'emergence' is quite > obviously intended by me. A lake is not apparent in the chemical formula > for water. I would defy anyone to quote any example of real-world > 'emergence' that does not ultimately rely on a necessary primitive. > 'Magical emergence' is when you claim 'qualitative novelty' without having > any idea (you can't point at it) of the necessary primitive, or by > defining an arbitrary one that is actually a notional construct (such as > 'information'), rather than anything real. All I can say is that I don't understand your distinction. You have introduced a new term "necessary primitive" - what on earth is that? But I'll let this pass, it probably isn't important. > COLIN > Ok. Here's where we find the big assumption. Feedback? HOW?...by who's > rules? Your rules. This is the real circularity which underpins > computationalism. It's the circularity that my real physical qualia model > cuts and kills. Mathematically: > > * You have knowledge KNOWLEDGE(t) of 'out there' > * You want more knowledge of 'out there' so > * KNOWLEDGE(t+1) is more than KNOWLEDGE(t) > * in computationalism who defines the necessary route to this?... > > d(KNOWLEDGE(t)) > --- = something you know = YOU DO. > dt > > So this means that in a computer abstraction. > > d(KNOWLEDGE(t)) > --- is already part of KNOWLEDGE(t) > dt No its not. dK/dt is generated by the interaction of the rules with the environment. Evolutionary algorithms are highly effective information pumps, pumping information from the environment into the genome, or whatever representation you're using to store the solutions. > > >> My scientific claim is that the electromagnetic field structure > literally the third person view of qualia. > > > Eh? Electromagnetic field of what? The brain? If so, do you think that > chemical potentiation plays no role at all in qualia? > > Chemical potentiation IS electric field. Bollocks. A hydrogen molecule and an oxygen atom held 1m apart have chemical potential, but there is precious little electric field between them. Furthermore, the chemical potential is independent on the separation, unlike the electric field. > There's no such thing as > 'mechanical' there's no such thing as 'chemical'. These are all metaphors > in certain contexts for what is there...space and charge (yes...and mass > associated with certain charge carriers). Where did you get this weird > idea that a metaphor can make qualia? > Why do you think space and charge are not metaphors also? I would not be so sure on this matter. > The electric field across the membrane of cells (astrocytes and neurons) > is MASSIVE. MEGAVOLTS/METER. Think SPARKS and LIGHTNIING. It dominates the > entire structure! It does not have to go anywhere. It just has to 'be'. > You 'be' it to get what it delivers. Less than 50% of the signalling in > the brain is synaptic, anyway! The dominant cortical process is actually > an astrocyte syncytium. (look it up!). I would be very silly to ignore the > single biggest, most dominant process of the brain that is so far > completely correlated in every way with qualia...in favour of any other > cause. You're obviously suggesting single neurons have qualia. Forgive me for being a little sceptical of this suggestion... -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: How would a computer know if it were conscious?
On Sunday 17 June 2007 02:02:28 Colin Hales wrote: > "What is the kind of universe we must live in if the electromagnetic field > structure of the brain delivers qualia?" > > A. It is NOT the universe depicted by the qualia (atoma, molecules, > cells...). It is the universe whose innate capacity to deliver qualia is > taken advantage of when configureed like it appears when we use qualia > themselves to explore itcortical brain matter. (NOTE: Please do not > make the mistake that sensors - peripheral affect - are equivalent to > qualia.) I will only react to this... What is cortical brain matter ? does it exists by itself ? if so, what is it composed of ? (matter ?) what is matter ? what is brain ? why cortical brain matter generates qualia ? why it must be so ? is qualia a dependance of cortical brain matter or the inverse ? is qualia responsible of what looks like cortical brain matter or is it cortical brain matter that makes feel qualia which in turns ask question about cortical brain matter ? Quentin --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: How would a computer know if it were conscious?
Hi, I am going to have to be a bit targetted in my responses I am a TAD whelmed at the moment. COLIN >> 4) Belief in 'magical emergence' qualitative novelty of a kind utterly unrelated to the componentry. RUSSEL > The latter clause refers to "emergence" (without the "magical" > qualifier), and it is impossible IMHO to have creativity without emergence. COLIN The distinction between 'magical emergence' and 'emergence' is quite obviously intended by me. A lake is not apparent in the chemical formula for water. I would defy anyone to quote any example of real-world 'emergence' that does not ultimately rely on a necessary primitive. 'Magical emergence' is when you claim 'qualitative novelty' without having any idea (you can't point at it) of the necessary primitive, or by defining an arbitrary one that is actually a notional construct (such as 'information'), rather than anything real. COLIN >> The system (a) automatically prescibes certain trajectories and RUSSEL > Yes. COLIN >> (b) assumes that the theroem space [and] natural world are the same space and equivalently accessed. RUSSEL > No - but the system will adjust its model according to feedback. That is the very nature of any learning algorithm, of which EP is just one example. COLIN Ok. Here's where we find the big assumption. Feedback? HOW?...by who's rules? Your rules. This is the real circularity which underpins computationalism. It's the circularity that my real physical qualia model cuts and kills. Mathematically: * You have knowledge KNOWLEDGE(t) of 'out there' * You want more knowledge of 'out there' so * KNOWLEDGE(t+1) is more than KNOWLEDGE(t) * in computationalism who defines the necessary route to this?... d(KNOWLEDGE(t)) --- = something you know = YOU DO. dt So this means that in a computer abstraction. d(KNOWLEDGE(t)) --- is already part of KNOWLEDGE(t) dt You can label it 'evolutionary' or 'adaptive' or whatever...ultimately the rules are YOUR rules and come from your previously derived KNOWLEDGE(t) of 'out there', not intrinsically grounded directly in 'out there'. Who decided what you don't know? YOU DID. What is it based on? YOUR current knowledge of it, not what is literally/really there. Ungroundedness is the fatal flaw in the computationalist model. Intrinsic grounding in the external world is what qualia are for. It means that d(KNOWLEDGE(t)) --- dt is (a) built into the brain hardware (plasticity chemistry, out of your cognitive control) (b) partly grounded in matter literally/directly constructed in representation of the external world, reflecting the external world so that NOVELTY - true novelty in the OUTSIDE WORLD - is apparent. In this way your current knowledge minimally impacts d(KNOWLEDGE(t)) --- dt In other words, at the fundamental physics level: d(KNOWLEDGE(t)) --- dt in a human brain is NOT part of KNOWLEDGE(t). Qualia are the brain's solution to the symbolic grounding problem. RUSSEL > Not at all. In Evolutionary Programming, very little is known about the ultimate solution the algorithm comes up with. COLIN Yes but that is irrelevantthe programmer said HOW it will get thereSorry...no cigarsee the above >> My scientific claim is that the electromagnetic field structure literally the third person view of qualia. > Eh? Electromagnetic field of what? The brain? If so, do you think that chemical potentiation plays no role at all in qualia? Chemical potentiation IS electric field. There's no such thing as 'mechanical' there's no such thing as 'chemical'. These are all metaphors in certain contexts for what is there...space and charge (yes...and mass associated with certain charge carriers). Where did you get this weird idea that a metaphor can make qualia? The electric field across the membrane of cells (astrocytes and neurons) is MASSIVE. MEGAVOLTS/METER. Think SPARKS and LIGHTNIING. It dominates the entire structure! It does not have to go anywhere. It just has to 'be'. You 'be' it to get what it delivers. Less than 50% of the signalling in the brain is synaptic, anyway! The dominant cortical process is actually an astrocyte syncytium. (look it up!). I would be very silly to ignore the single biggest, most dominant process of the brain that is so far completely correlated in every way with qualia...in favour of any other cause. --- Once again I'd like to get you to ask yourself the killer question: "What is the kind of universe we must live in if the electromagnetic field structure of the brain delivers qualia?" A. It is NOT the universe depicted by the qualia (atoma, molecules, cells...). It is the universe whose innate capacity to deliver qualia is taken advantage of when configureed like it appears when we use qualia themselves to explore itcortical brain matter. (NOTE: Please do not make the mistake that sensors - peripheral a
Re: Consciousness and Consistency
Le 12-juin-07, à 21:33, Tom Caylor a écrit : > Is not "Dt?" equal to "the search for truth"? "Dt?" could *hopefully* be *part* of "the search for truth". Unsound machines can be consistent yet false (in the usual arithmetical sense). > But the weakness of > simple consistency is the unanswered question, "What is truth?" Yes. > Truth > is not found simply through consistency when we reject the truth that > is all around. You are right. > >>> Comp seems like a lot of work. >> >> Yes indeed. Two times more work than materialist are used to think. We >> have to isolate a "theory of mind" AND then, it remains to test the >> physical laws forced by that theory of mind, as the UDA and the >> arithmetical UDA justifies (or should justify). >> >> But the scientific attitude always asks for "lot of works",as I just >> said above. >> > > Perhaps you should use a different word than "scientific" for your > *good* "attitude" of open-mindedness, modesty and humility, searching > for truth, since the word "scientific" tends to be still connected > with the pre-Godelian reductionism. Or post-platonian reductionism. I think I use the term "scientist" in the usual sense already well described by Plato and later by Descartes (and many other in the east). That science leads to pseudo-science is in the nature of science. (like standing up leds to fall). I think we should'nt change the terms when other misuse them. Science = doubt, and faith. pseudo-science = authoritative argument (of any kind). > I would not put up a dichotomy > between this attitude and a belief in God. Ok with a belief in God? > But perhaps your use of > the word "scientific" is based on your conviction to use the word as > you think it "should" (assuming comp? ;) be used, rather like your use > of the word "theology". > Actually I'm starting to think that you > really aren't that far off in your use of the word "theology" for the > search for truth. We can come back on this, but my Saturday students arrive, ... see you asap, Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
