RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (4) < 1 2 [3] 4 >   
  Topic: Randomness versus Purpose, a Discussion, Exploring some provoked thoughts< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2010,16:40   

I wonder if consciousness could be defined as an ability to predict (i.e., compute) likelihood of possible future events (perhaps outcomes of different possible actions), based on data acquired from previous sensory inputs?

Henry

  
Joy



Posts: 188
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2010,17:14   

Can't software on a computer do that? i.e. Big Blue, gambling, investment 'strategizers' and such? In which case, is the software conscious? The computer that runs it?

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2010,17:17   

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 15 2010,17:14)
is the software conscious? The computer that runs it?

I don't think it would be the computer. If you simulated a neural network with many tin cans and made it laugh, what would be amused? The tin cans?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2010,17:25   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Feb. 15 2010,15:25)
So, do you presume consciousness (the ability to have intent) is algorithmic or not?

Algorithmic, I suspect. However, I'm not sure I adequately understand everything that might be implied by the term 'algorithmic.' So, to answer another way, I think it will some day be possible for humans to create 'from scratch' entities that have consciousness and intent that are not fundamentally distinguishable from the consciousness and intent that humans or other animals possess now.

Even if consciousness and intent arise from quantum effects in some 'special' way, and even if that means they are non-algorithmic, I still expect that they are properties that arise automatically from certain arrangements of matter and energy. If you create the appropriate arrangement of matter and energy de novo, I expect it will be conscious and have intent.

I assume there is nothing 'magic' about consciousness. It doesn't require some sort of soul bestowed by a deity. The mind is what the brain does, and all that.

I'm not absolutely committed to any of that, though, because we simply don't understand mind or consciousness very well. If someone could present strong evidence in favor of mind-body duality, for example, I'd be willing to reconsider.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2010,17:39   

Saying that consciousness or intention is algorithmic doesn't imply that it is easy to replicate in silicon.

Anyone interested in a new approach could google "brains in silicon".

The folks at Stanford believe they've got a more efficient piece of hardware, by many orders of magnitude. They don't claim to have done something that can't be done by brute force in a supercomputer, but they think they have the power consumption beat by about a million to one.

In practical terms this means they can tackel bigger problems and model bigger brains.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2010,19:17   

Hi midwifetoad,

Thank you for the tip to look for "Brains in Silicon"

It is a fascinating site.  I would agree that if it works it would invalidate my presumption.

If my presumption is correct then until they incorporate quantum computation (or organic material) their efforts will be the equivalent of Cargo Cults.  They can perfect the emulations but the "special" spark of consciousness just won't appear.

For the record, I still presume my individual consciousness will not survive my physical death.  However, I am fairly agnostic on this.  It might be possible.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2010,19:38   

Of course, we are bereft of a definition of "consciousness" in this discussion. Is it like pornography, in that we can't define it, yet masturbate when we see it? Discussions like this always seem to indicate so. Which is not to say that I'm not in on the circle jerk. But points of contact with empirical science are always helpful.

Seems to me that many elements of the human brain and human subjectivity that are crucially important to human consciousness (including the capacity to represent intentions) are omitted when solely considering abstractions such computational models and quantum indeterminacy.

Human cognition and consciousness, particularly at the very high level of representation and meta-representation that is entailed in "purposing" and discerning others' purposes, is clearly instantiated in an integrated symphony (sometimes a cacophony) of neural structures operating in parallel, an ensemble that has an evolutionary history that has yielded a complex, contingent, and often surpassing strange architecture. These structures range from demonstrable streams of processing that support the entirely unconscious visual guidance of motor actions to highly declarative prefrontal representations of others' representations of our own representations (I think that he thinks I am thinking that he thinks that…). And everything in between, from the reentrant wiring of the hippocampus to the limbic engine of affective concerns (that likely solves the frame problem for human beings) to the reverberant conversation between Broca and Wernike's area conducted by means of the arcuate bundle to the goosing of the cortex by sensory input via the thalami. Not to mention non-neural factors such as one's pure physical and muscular embodiment in the world and a lifetime immersion in a social environment that conducts virtually all commerce using a representatonal coin of agency and intentionality.

We are very far from understanding this symphony/cacophony and very far from the point where we need resort to quantum phenomena to account for the complex and subtle behaviors/experiences that emerge from this racket. Which is not to demean those efforts; rather, should a quantum basis for subjectivity be discovered there would still be a whack of a lot of work to do at the level I describe above before we would really understand human consciousness.

BTW, it doesn't follow from the proposition that consciousness is required for purposing and intentions that consciousness = purposing and intention. I have no difficulty envisioning creatures that possess sensory consciousness, yet have no capacity to "intend" in a way that resembles human intentions, even in miniature. As I've said before, that requires a capacity for representation that is clearly contingent upon the sorts of complexities that I cite above.

[minor edits]

[ETA] The arcuate bundle:



--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2010,22:02   

Hi Reciprocating Bill,

Thank you for the very well reasoned and thoughtful comment.

I don't see anything I could seriously argue with.

IMO, it makes for a good final word.

However, if anyone else wants to continue, please do.

Thank you all for your indulgence and participation.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2010,08:31   

Quote
an ensemble that has an evolutionary history that has yielded a complex, contingent, and often surpassing strange architecture.


Pretty much my thoughts on the subject. Even if we make silicon neurons, the overall architecture will elude conventional engineering, and will probably elude reverse engineering.

It will need to evolve, and even if we had the hardware, it will have to learn. And if it does eventually become a facsimile of a biological brain, it will have the same weaknesses.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Robert Byers



Posts: 160
Joined: Nov. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2010,03:14   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Feb. 11 2010,17:03)
Utunumsint's thread rekindled some thoughts over differing views of reality.

The Born-Einstein letters include Einstein saying…
“Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the ‘old one’. I, at any rate, am convinced that He is not playing at dice.”

This has been paraphrased as a simple declaration “God does not play dice.”

I have notice most of the “dueling metaphysics” revolves around the placeholder for unknown causes.  Can randomness be a cause?

To be clear, by “randomness” I mean a result with no deterministic cause.  The individual digits of PI are not random.  A pseudo random-number generator is not random.

What about the results of a die roll?

Under pure Newtonian physics, it would not be random.  The actions and reactions might be too complex to be easily measured but if they could be, the result would be predictable (i.e. deterministic).  However, we now know reality includes Quantum Physics with its built-in uncertainty principle.

The causes behind quantum effects may forever be unknown. Does that mean we should presume these causes are random?

Should we presume they have a purpose?

This probably depends on one's definition of "purpose".

Is life and consciousness a necessary precondition for purpose?

If so, it would lead to a metaphysical presumption that somehow life is more than just a collection of material and chemicals.

If not, purpose could possibly be ascribed to the universe itself.

As for the cause of the universe, my metaphysical presumption is to believe in an endless series of cycles.

Think of a plot of tan(x) where “x” is the equivalent to a concept of time (call it cosmic duration) which is outside of space-time.  The Y-axis relates to entropy and perceived time.

Think of us as being around x=0.  If we extrapolate back, we consider the universe as starting pi/2 cosmic duration ago and having increasing entropy ever since.  For pi/2 into the future see increasing entropy until everything has collapses into Black Holes which completely evaporate via Hawking Radiation.

At pi/2 the whole thing starts over again.

What “purpose” could we presume with such a universe?

Well existance is an obvious possibility.

Another purpose could be to cause the next universe to exist.

I included the words “a discussion” in the title of this thread to indicate that I am not planning on engaging in a debate.  I am honestly interested in hearing what other people’s thoughts are on these subjects.  I suspect just about everyone has a placeholder, a presumption, to make sense of things until more and better information comes along.

In the past, I would have posted these ramblings on Telic Thoughts.  However, they have become too similar to Uncommon Descent for my tastes.

I appreciate being permitted to post here, and I will try not to abuse the privilege too much.

Thanks,
Thought Provoker

YEC here. I have never had a interest in quantum mechanics and company. In fact recently I read a bit on wiki just because of a interest in the vacume of water.
I come away surprised and unimpressed with the whole thing.
It shows to me that physics is a inferior complexity to biology by far. So looking for a creator in physics as the finale answer is looking the wrong way.

Finding the finale atomic structure of the universe is just looking at raw foundations of raw elements.
Biology is where God and complexity is to be found. This is why Newton/Einstein could figure things out before blindness is solved. Its simple relatively.

Therefore there can't be any randomness in practical mechanics.
Its just the better equations have not been discovered.
God doesn't play dice but it can seem to be to people.
uts all orderly from basic presumptions.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2010,04:29   

Quote
Therefore there can't be any randomness in practical mechanics.

And your proof is what, precisely?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Robert Byers



Posts: 160
Joined: Nov. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2010,01:36   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 17 2010,04:29)
Quote
Therefore there can't be any randomness in practical mechanics.

And your proof is what, precisely?

The idea is that any machine has laws. Or it doesn't work as intended. So there can not be randomness in the machine of the universe save where it is a little broken or affects nothing of substance.

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2010,04:19   

The universe is not a machine. Are you a machine? Is your behavior 100'% predictable, with no random components? All your posting here at AtBC is machine-like, you are machine that have to keep on posting nonsense?  Ever heard of the butterfly effect? Quantum Mechanics?

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2010,06:23   

Quote (Quack @ Feb. 19 2010,05:19)
The universe is not a machine. Are you a machine?

I happen to be a 28 ton Walsh OBI press. But that's just me.



--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2010,06:31   

From my days of youthful dissipation:



--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,05:33   

Gaaak! I missed this thread? I'm only gone for a few months/yearish and you get this discussion? And no one calls me? I must apologize in advance. I read this post and it is shameful that I am about to ckick submit rather than edit but I'm afraid I cannot improve it until I first improve myself, which I am about to do.

I yearn for meaningless discussion involving math which I am utterly unable to put to any good use and philosophy which cares not for the present but dreams only of a glorious future when the universal mind-meld begins. And all this time Louis and Reciprocating Bill and Doc Bill and these other beer drinking louts were scoffing at the boon which fortune dropped in their laps.

Children of too much privilege says I.

Now...

Let me pull myself together and ... no. That won't work. Forgive me I'm still sipping the steam from above my first pot of coffee so you will just have to take me as I am.

Now, I can see you two Thought Provoker and Joy, are here, sent to provoke my thoughts and bring me Joy. Else why would you have such names? See. It cannot be denied.

As I mentioned in the other thread on Freewill, even Dennett's reductionist materialism allows that if the degrees of freedom exceed the potential options then will can be no freer.

I do think that lacking the main arguments from "Freedom Evolves' and most thought provokingly and even joyfully, the method Hofstadter outlines in his magnum opus, "Godel, Escher Bach, an Eternal Golden Braid" you two may feel slightly confused as this discussion begins to plumb the empty recesses of the broadest metaphysical questions (which I do believe hold a wonderful key if we can but penetrate their depths). So I recommend you at least go right straight out and buy "Freedom Evolves" at least and digest as much as possible as we go through the fundamental structure of our foreground. I thought to suggest you run out and get GEB too but that is a commitment which is far more serious than I could ask of you two whom I hardly even know yet. I can tell that I like you both however. I hope the feeling becomes mutual.

I really should go take a shower right now but I'll see if I can't take an hour or so later and try to synthesize a suitable question from the several threads to fashion into an artistic whole and lay before you as an offering to the mystery that is life and the pastime that is intellectual exploration.

Please do make a note when you have gotten well into DSennett. The first 50 pages are, sadly, a little slow. But for people who devour Penrose, perhaps Dennett will be remedial . I know you will love the book.

I assume you really can do the twistor math? Alas, I cannot. I can write the equations but I cannot then solve them with any suitable level of confidence. Perhaps I can find another helper if we need one.

It is possible, indeed, in my experience even likely, that we will never need scour our top desk drawers for a pen or a scientific calculator. However, if need be, I have a link which may help us avoid the tedious chore of trying, without an instructor to check my work, to decide whether we have a solution .

Forgive me if I presume to much. It is my own shortcomings over which I fret. At any rate, here is a link to a site with several useful simulators:

http://phet.colorado.edu/index.php

Professors take note! These are almost like a wet dream. I could indeed orgasm from simply watching them if I but had a tiny bit of slightly rhythmic help from some outside source.

The link you will follow for intellectually carnal ecstasy is here:

http://phet.colorado.edu/simulations/index.php

Now that we have tiny genii to manipulate our numbers, and sufficient reading material to stimulate our pituitary regimen, maybe I need to allow you a moment alone with those simulations. I am off to shower of my body so that I can begin this odyssey with a clean mind and clean skin. I will also drive to work between now and the time I return here so those who have not yet started Freedom Evolves will have some time to prepare. Also those that may need a wash after playing with the toys above will have a chance.


Until then, Adieu.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,05:41   

Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 18 2010,23:36)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 17 2010,04:29)
Quote
Therefore there can't be any randomness in practical mechanics.

And your proof is what, precisely?

The idea is that any machine has laws. Or it doesn't work as intended. So there can not be randomness in the machine of the universe save where it is a little broken or affects nothing of substance.

You sorry sad man. Your claim is inaccurate and I can tell by the conviction in the syntax that you are unlikely to ever challenge your own thinking. As Lord Russell once remarked,

If you think that your belief is based upon reason, you will support it by argument, rather then by persecution, and will abandon it if the argument goes against you. But if your belief is based on faith, you will realize that argument is useless and will therefore result to force either in the form of persecution or by stunting and distorting the minds of the young in what is called education.

But such are the fickle vagaries of fate. By all means good sir, I am wrong often enough that this could indeed be such a time. If I am, I will offer my most sincere apology, I promise. However, If I am wrong, you are unlikely to take offense so that leaves me in a sticky spot. But no matter. I am off to shower so it will soon be the plumbing's problem rather than mine.

Till later dear friends.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,14:59   

Hi BWE,

I'm glad you like the thread I started.

No, I can't really do the twistor math.  I can barely understand it but I am trying.

I looked at Wikipedia's summary of Freedom Evolves the first time you recommended it.

My differences with Dennett would probably be mostly semantics.

I look at the universe similar to a 4D space-time fractal.  While I think of it as non-changing that doesn't make practical sense because we perceive it as changing with respect to time.

So is our future pre-determined?

I suggest yes and no.  It isn't deterministic because the future is more than unknown, it is unknowable.  Not even a Laplacian Demon can know the resolution of qubits in superposition since quanglement occurs across time (including from the future) as well as space.

As to the subject of this thread...

I say there is no such thing as true randomness and the only possible "purpose" is keeping the universe consistent with its 4D space-time fractal wavefunction.

As to the question of Free Will...

A question I often ask in religious discussions is "How does an omniscient and timeless God make a decision?"  How can God decide to not do what he already decided to do?

With Quantum Consciousness decisions are in superposition until Orchestrated Object Reduction (Orch-OR) occurs.

This makes our decisions non-deterministic, yet non-random.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,15:38   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Feb. 14 2010,12:50)
Hi qetzal,
 
Quote (qetzal @ Feb. 14 2010,13:47)
 
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Feb. 12 2010,19:47)
It was my intent to suggest the first statement (purpose requires living consciousness) would lead to a presumption living consciousness is something special.

It would be a logical default position, IMO.


Special? I wouldn't say that. All it means is that living consciousness is essential for purpose. (And from my perspective, that's really just a matter of definition anyway.)

It wouldn't imply that living consciousness is somehow 'special' as far as the universe or a hypothetical god is concerned, if that's what you're suggesting.

It probably comes down to semantics and stating the obvious.  If consciousness is required for intent then consciousness is a special quality because it is required for something to have intent.

I did not mean in-the-image-of-God type special.

To reiterate, I believe many living things are conscious.

Monkeys, cat, dogs, etc demonstrate an ability to have intent, IMO.

I would suggest most people would agree rust does not have intent whereas humans do.

Where is the threshold between the two extremes?

Viruses?

Bacteria?

Ants?

Dogs?

Or is the ability to have intent reserved exclusively for humans and, maybe, close relatives e.g. monkeys?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/08/050825071502.htm

http://journals.lww.com/neurore.....2.aspx

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090617131400.htm

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0603780103

Hello. was on a bit of a rampag over the weekend. Apologies if I made no sense. I really hardly ever do so I shouldn't let myself be embarassed when the degree fluctuates some, but nonetheless, if it seemed like I was making dada poetry that is not the case. I've been on (and still am for half of this week) a ridiculous deadline schedule and my sleep has suffered. I am also away from home till thursday so I require a certain level of inebriation to dull the ache of missing my wife and our offspring (when they are around which some of them were this weekend).

That is unashamedly an excuse btw. It's for me as much as for you. Also, it may continue until thursday or so between the hours of 5pm  pst and an hour or two after I wake up in the morning, usually that is around 7 am pst by the time I can find the shift key and use capital letters etc. so perhaps it's a heads up too.

Anyway, now that I've apologized in advance and am pre-forgiven for the sins that will follow, these links are all related to consciousness/awareness. I personally use the word 'awareness' to denote anything that can make a choice within it's environment. That leaves viruses in a dicey position but that's their problem and they don't seem to mind. I use the word 'consciousness to specifically refer to the role the brain plays in the decision process. That means things with brains are conscious by that definition. Then I use the word 'self-symbol' or self-aware' to refer to a sliding scale measuring computational power of the brain with the final piece, the "I" being reached when a conscious entity manages to model enough of its world to see the functioning of the group as a unit and also manages to model the success of the group after the failure of the individual. the I stands (to me) for the third letter in the second word of the phrase, "Holy shit! We're all gonna die!"

I just find it's easier to break up the elements a bit so we can better recognize the roles each play in the crazy thing we call self-awareness.Do you know that you actually don't see the world around with your eyes in an area much bigger than a single card from a deck at any one time? It's true and I can prove it to you. But before I do, the reason you feel like you have a wide field of vision is twofold. First, strangely enough, we expect it to be there and every time we look it is. Seems too simple but experiment continually verifies this astonishing fact. I could give you references, but I think once you try the card trick, you won't need to read about it so much. Second, did you know that we reorder events in our brains, no matter how hard we think we are paying attention, into the most logical (easiest to fit to known symbols) sequence of cause and effect despite the events actually happening in a different sequence as measured by instruments? What's more, in many cases we are simply incapable of doing otherwise? Human brains, for example, are incapable of coordinating with the visual systems well enough to resolve a barber's pole without actually walking around it? And if we look away for some amount of time, we have to do it again?

Forward modeling is what neuroscientists call it. And it is some strange business. I think I posted the link yesterday to the optical illusions article? If not, here it is again:

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/080602-foresee-future.html

Reading through these threads, I see that you have louis, Reciprocating Bill, Doc Bill, Albitrossity and others (apologies were already given above to those I forgot) helping you out. I don't think I've ever come across a more well rounded individual than these guys put together. It is good fortune to have them to discuss a topic with. I hope you know that you are very lucky for the chance.

Ok, so there's a whole bunch of links I posted up there. The point I hope they make as a group is that the real question first and foremost involves the modeling of time, remembering patterns and beneficial pro/re-actions when they occur. Whether they store memories of patterns and beneficial counter patterns quickly, as a brain does, or very slowly through the evolution of the genome and the expression of instinct, it is quite our-resolution-centric to say that intelligence or awareness needs a mind like ours. Do you know very much about the field of heuristics? Think, "change in allele frequency over time."

Many many systems are able to record states and to repeat them when the conditions are right. However, if we want human self aware style AI, the electronic brain will likely be a bit player in the system. Brooks' subsumption architecture turns out to work.

Penrose raises some brilliant questions about recursive levels which are basically unimportant to the mechanical operation of the syste, While QM, QFT, QCD and probably OCD all obviously contribute to the behavior of atoms. Atoms behave like atoms. Have you ever seen a high opower tunneling microscope's picture of a pentacene molecule? Here it is:



This is an extraordinarily recent technical development to be able to take that picture.  Before we ever took the picture, we had to deduce it's shape and properties from a system that louis explains better than I. So, would you expect the atom's structure to be close to what we expected or not close? That question relates to how deep we go into a system to find building blocks. I dare you to try to use quarks and leptons, twistors, misters Feynman's diagrams, and shrodinger's dogs, or equations Spandrels or spaniels and try to arrive at that structure.

Actually, it may be easy. I know I can't do it. Louis again, might be able to share some insight. But if you use those smaller structures and equations to model their behavior, you will start to fail as you try to add them together. If, however, you begin with the periodic table*

* BTW, next summer support me in my covert and devious scheme to pressure a friend of mine** at the ~federal dept of education*** to help us put together a plan and get periodic tables in every classroom in america., Displayed creatively in floor insets table top laminates, posters, Small 11x17 poster with rock stars printed on them and places to stash weed on the back so kids will take them home and hang them up.**** I am quite serious about that. I have been doing a little doodling for ideas to get it done in portland and Barb is director of science something or other now. It's a chance to hit up nice people to join me in a zany escapade and it is critical for education. If kids got out of middle school understanding only the logic of the table and of reactivity and the structure and functioning of cells, organisms and ecosystems with nearly no details at all, they'd sail through the high school courses and never know that barbie says science is hard.

Anyway, all that and I forgot my point and I need to go back to work. Perhaps it's in that wall of text. Fortunately, my apologies have already been made.

See you this evening who manage to stay with it till the sun goes down-or up. Depends where you are I guess. Bye.

**and probably some of yours too
I'll tell you more over the summer. I

*** I always forget her agency and title but she is in the right spot to help.

****Special apology to all the parents with teenagers out there.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,15:42   

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 15 2010,15:14)
Can't software on a computer do that? i.e. Big Blue, gambling, investment 'strategizers' and such? In which case, is the software conscious? The computer that runs it?

damn. Without an agent there is no system to react to. Brooks was right:

http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/cogarch3/Brooks/Brooks.html
Awareness is not a phenomenon isolated to the region between our ears. Nor does that area participate in very much decision making in the day to day. Damn I have to go. Will someone please explain the card trick? Hold it out, no peaking and etc,...

Also google, "The Bayesian Brain"

Bye for real this time.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,15:43   

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 15 2010,15:14)
Can't software on a computer do that? i.e. Big Blue, gambling, investment 'strategizers' and such? In which case, is the software conscious? The computer that runs it?

This is actually clearly answered in dennett's consciousness explained. Damn.

Now I have to speed. Bye.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
sledgehammer



Posts: 533
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,15:44   

I see consciousness as a continuum.  Even plants exhibit a level of consciousness when they orient their leaves toward the sun. You could certainly say they do it for a purpose.  It is also a learned behavior, if you take evolution and selection as establishing a type of memory.  Purely mechanical response, you say?  Maybe so, but where is the line to be drawn?

--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,17:33   

Quote (sledgehammer @ Feb. 22 2010,13:44)
I see consciousness as a continuum.  Even plants exhibit a level of consciousness when they orient their leaves toward the sun. You could certainly say they do it for a purpose.  It is also a learned behavior, if you take evolution and selection as establishing a type of memory.  Purely mechanical response, you say?  Maybe so, but where is the line to be drawn?

I write a lot irl. I have to make lots of drafts.

http://www.bcs.rochester.edu/people....S04.pdf

This is one of the coolest things in terms of a real, testable model. It's a Bayesian approach to modeling neural systems.

Quote
The Bayesian brain: the role of
uncertainty in neural coding and
computation
David C. Knill and Alexandre Pouget


Also, to demonstrate that you actually can't see shit, try this experiment. You will need a deck of cards.

sit straight backed in a chair with the deck face down on the table beside and a little behind you so you can't see it. First, extend both arms to their full length directly in front of you and focus your eyes on them. Keeping your eyes on them (you may need an assistant to help keep you from cheating) reach with one hand and pick up a card, holding it face towards you but keeping you gaze on the other hand still in front of you. This is more difficult that it sounds. Slowly, with arm extended (the hand holding the card) bring it around toward the other hand. Note when you can tell if it is a face card or not. Then note when you can tell what color it is, then note when you can tell what card it is. If you do not cheat and move, your yes you will pretty much be holding it in both hands before you can tell the card.

What we call consciousness isn't as much as we'd like to think.

One of the reasons I like the different words for different aspects or manifestations of systems that make choices. Thermostats are almost aware...

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,17:59   

Quote
Maybe so, but where is the line to be drawn?

What line? :)

Henry

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,18:06   

Hmmm. Maybe I should edit one up tonight. Is there even the glimmer of coherency in one of those posts I made?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,18:21   

Quote (BWE @ Feb. 22 2010,18:06)
Hmmm. Maybe I should edit one up tonight. Is there even the glimmer of coherency in one of those posts I made?

Yes, this one.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,18:34   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 22 2010,16:21)
Quote (BWE @ Feb. 22 2010,18:06)
Hmmm. Maybe I should edit one up tonight. Is there even the glimmer of coherency in one of those posts I made?

Yes, this one.

I'll try to have that done tonight.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,18:38   

Quote
It is also a learned behavior, if you take evolution and selection as establishing a type of memory.


Not just a type of memory - it looks somewhat analogous to a neural network, with some of the properties that we associate with intelligence. (It also lacks some of those properties, though - it can't "remember" things to avoid in the future like people do.)

Henry

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,19:21   

Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 22 2010,16:38)
Quote
It is also a learned behavior, if you take evolution and selection as establishing a type of memory.


Not just a type of memory - it looks somewhat analogous to a neural network, with some of the properties that we associate with intelligence. (It also lacks some of those properties, though - it can't "remember" things to avoid in the future like people do.)

Henry

well, yes it does in a way. What is the context for that quote?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2010,19:56   

The quote came from a post about 6 replies above it: sledgehammer, posted 2/22/10 2:44 PM.

Henry

  
  97 replies since Feb. 11 2010,17:03 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (4) < 1 2 [3] 4 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]