On naturalism and consciousness

[The Grand Nudger]

As an idea about dualism, I like this one. If mind is intrinsically a property of all matter, then you don't have to explain how some physical systems magically have it and some don't.

Don't need magic to explain that anyway......

One possibility I suggested in the last thread about this stuff is that every energetic interchange results in a kind of quantum consciousness-- a tiny little spark of qualia. Then, you are looking at a quantative difference between systems, rather than a mysterious quantitative one. It's easy to imagine that the brain involves many orders of magnitude more interchanges of energy than a rock does, as would an active thinking brain involve more such interchanges than one in a coma.

-or a modern computer

And Benny, if you line me up some rocks in a formation that would be able to handle a robust array of logical and mathematical; functions I'd go ahead and give the pile of rocks -something- like what we have, conceptually. Just an fyi. Computational theory does not limit "mind" by its structure, architecture, or composition - it describes it by reference to principals that works regardless of structure, architecture, or composition. NN theorists take it further, not attempting to show that nuerons could be gates, but that anything that produces the effect of a gate (no matter how it does it) qualifies -as a gate-. Perhaps that why you find ANNs so unconvicncing at present? They're skipping the middle steps -precisely in order- to provide a convincing sim? Meanwhile, you and I are really wondering about those middle steps, eh?

[bennyboy]

-or a modern computer

If we are really talking about a switch in worldview from substance duality to property duality/ambiguism, I'd see that as a conflation of idealistic and physical monisms. In other words, you by definition couldn't have matter without mind and vice versa, because they are two faces of the same coin. My personal guess would be that all potential energy would be seen as a kind of experiential potential, and all energetic interchanges would involve a kind of quantum "mind" or consciousness.

The implication of this is that any physical system which produces organized data flow would necessarily be conscious-- not maybe, or not in some cases. And that would include an ANN, especially under the condition that the system has an ongoing feedback loop such that parts of the network were constantly firing.

The other implication would be that consciousness is both layered and fluid, and that divisions among systems would be arbitrary, due to conservation of energy.

spacetime full of mindmatter, anyone?

[The Grand Nudger]

Except that an observation of a part does not allow us to draw a solid conclusion about the whole. Certain arrangements of matter have the potential to possess "mind" whatever the hell it is. "Any old arrangement" of matter doesn't seem to possess either "mind" or computational ability (regardless of whether they are separate, or identical attributes).

[bennyboy]

Certain arrangements of matter have the potential to possess "mind" whatever the hell it is.

That's a different model then. You are still talking about supervenience.

Except that an observation of a part does not allow us to draw a solid conclusion about the whole.

I don't see how any amount of observation, of whole or part, will establish whether a given system or subsystem posseses mind. Unless, of course, mind is redefined in terms of physical correlates, which is an imposition of dogma that invalidates the process of observation.

[The Grand Nudger]

Are you disagreeing with my statement? Does beach sand possess "mind"? How about a spool of thread? Pencils? Under a "traditional" theory of mind, or under a computational theory, none of these things would possess "mind". There's really no difference in this regard. That's all I'm trying to explain.

With regards to observation - there's that custom box you've built, eh? If observation can't help us we're in deep shit - as that means that logic and reason can't help us either (we're quickly running out of tools, aren't we). It's a permanent unknown the way you have conceived of it. A moot point. Nothing about considering mind to -be- it's physical correlates invalidates observation...cmon man. I appreciate the dramatic flair - but that's a bit much...but just to be a pain in the as...so what if it did? Whats the worst that could happen, it would be unknowable? No problem, it already is- according to you.

Meh, we -do- have known limits, and probably unknown ones as well (I wouldn't know ) I'm just not comfortable declaring this to be one by fiat.

(if you'd like to explain that position, about mind and correlates invalidating observation, btw, I'd love to see how you got from a to b on that one, despite not being able to sign onboard)

[bennyboy]

Are you disagreeing with my statement? Does beach sand possess "mind"? How about a spool of thread? Pencils? Under a "traditional" theory of mind, or under a computational theory, none of these things would possess "mind". There's really no difference in this regard. That's all I'm trying to explain.

I don't think the sand possesses mind as a singular entity, but at the subatomic and atomic levels, there would still be mind there (IF single-substance, dual-property is true).

With regards to observation - there's that custom box you've built, eh? If observation can't help us we're in deep shit - as that means that logic and reason can't help us either (we're quickly running out of tools, aren't we).

I think observation is very helpful. It helps us make formulas about things, build bridges and computers, and allows us the power to indirectly (but very greatly) change our life experience.

It's a permanent unknown the way you have conceived of it.

I don't see any other way to conceive it that conforms to basic logic. If I'm trying to use observation to make inferences about observation, I end up with a nasty circle, and circles are the enemy of logic.

A moot point. Nothing about considering mind to -be- it's physical correlates invalidates observation...cmon man. I appreciate the dramatic flair - but that's a bit much...but just to be a pain in the as...so what if it did? Whats the worst that could happen, it would be unknowable? No problem, it already is- according to you.

The problem here is that by defining the subjective in objective terms, you might end up with results that don't accord with reality. You might, for example, end up with a robot that you assume and believe to experience qualia, but which in fact does not. And all the scientific articles and reviews, all the confirmation of one observer with the results of another, won't change that fact.

(if you'd like to explain that position, about mind and correlates invalidating observation, btw, I'd love to see how you got from a to b on that one, despite not being able to sign onboard)

As soon as words get defined in a way that begs the question, we already know that our results are going to fit our world view. This is not a process of inquiry, but of semantic reflection-- the logical equivalent of a dog happily chasing its own tail.

We all criticize X-tians for doing this. "What's God? He's the all-powerful being described in the Bible. What's the Bible? It's the infallible proof of the existence of God." It's a fun enough game to play if you like that kind of thing-- but it thwarts any sincere investigation into whether an actual God could or does exist.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't think the sand possesses mind as a singular entity, but at the subatomic and atomic levels, there would still be mind there (IF single-substance, dual-property is true).

Word salad, how are we to handle such a proposition? How do you handle it? What operation can you perform upon it and how have you determined that this claim is sound?

I think observation is very helpful. It helps us make formulas about things, build bridges and computers, and allows us the power to indirectly (but very greatly) change our life experience.

Clearly not, you've decided that it's useless to the subject in question (I don't want to see you attempting to use it now..........)

I don't see any other way to conceive it that conforms to basic logic. If I'm trying to use observation to make inferences about observation, I end up with a nasty circle, and circles are the enemy of logic.

Computational theory of mind is -all- about "basic logic" - so this comment really mystifies me. What do you think I'm talking about when I offer a gate? No logic, no computation - no computation, no computational theory of mind. I'm literally referring to nothing else. Fuck man, logic itself is observation......just where can we even go from this point?

The problem here is that by defining the subjective in objective terms, you might end up with results that don't accord with reality.

That would be a problem for someone who has thrown away observation in this area why?

You might, for example, end up with a robot that you assume and believe to experience qualia, but which in fact does not.

Why would I assume that, why would you?

And all the scientific articles and reviews, all the confirmation of one observer with the results of another, won't change that fact.

What fact? The fact that you are capable of imagining me making an assumption that I wouldn't make (and have no reason to make)? Conceded, good game sir?

As soon as words get defined in a way that begs the question, we already know that our results are going to fit our world view. This is not a process of inquiry, but of semantic reflection-- the logical equivalent of a dog happily chasing its own tail.

Inquiry about what? No observations allowed Benny. They're useless here, if you'll recall.

We all criticize X-tians for doing this. "What's God? He's the all-powerful being described in the Bible. What's the Bible? It's the infallible proof of the existence of God." It's a fun enough game to play if you like that kind of thing-- but it thwarts any sincere investigation into whether an actual God could or does exist.

That has bearing on computational theory of mind....how?

[bennyboy]

@Rhythm

This most recent chain, as far as I can tell, was started with my comments about tjakey and Pickup_shonuff's ideas about property duality, but you want me to focus specifically on computation theory of mind. Let then me try and address your theory, instead of trying to carry on this confusing chain of mutual past-talking.

I like the fact that you've identified a specific process-- logic gating-- as a candidate for the supervenience (or simple equivalence?) of mind. My pet peeve is when people wave toward the brain dismissively, proclaiming, "Well, there it is-- obviously," and you aren't doing that.

My own physicalist theory is that mind is intrinsic to all energy exchanges, and that these happen exclusively at the subatomic and atomic levels. I wonder if you could consider events at the quantum level "logic gate" processes or not? It seems to me that discrete packet sizes of energy would lend well to OR/XOR/AND/XAND type comparisons.

[The Grand Nudger]

Quantum computing is something that's being looked into. If you had a quantum computing device it -should- be capable of handling a particular set of problems fairly well (and would have a correlative system in "standard" computing). The trouble, iirc, is cancelling out the noise on the line in order to get a solid, probabilistic, signal. I know that sounds like a decrease in function (the machine assigning probabilities) but the draw is that QM scale architecture would allow for an obscene density in the "chipset". 1 large slow, clunky binary adder - vs billions of tiny, fast heuristic math devices. We have suspicions that billions of fast guesses would be functionally superior to our standard architecture of the present (and also that biological systems might be more accurately described in this manner, btw). Quantum computing is a big draw for NN theorists (neural network) as opposed to computational theorists - as the logic in the middle can be driven around in favor of producing the effect - instead of the process. Two roads to the same destination. The question for either architecture, ultimately, is "can i get a collection of malleable components to yield the proper answer in situation "x". That's how gates are abstracted, but also how networks of heuristics are abstracted. Gates use well known, well mapped logical functions. Networks throw darts at a wall. A Quantum computer, btw, would throw darts at a wall on one level of abstraction, but would then map the pattern of those darts into something more traditionally compatible so that useful work could be done. At some point, the architecture has to leave the arena of where quantum effects have much sway.

I want to ask, assuming that we don't see this, why we don't see consciousness or mind on display everywhere we look? If the universe were a collection of quantum computing devices (or if mind was intrinsic to all energy exchanges) the architecture would be many times more advanced than either any modern PC - or a human brain. We would expect a beach to express mind in an even more pronounced way than any human being would be capable of expressing it. This is a prediction made by your conceptualization of mind. It's a falsifiable claim. It's unavoidable, as you've described mind as something intrinsic to -all- exchanges of energy. If we can't find that sort of mind - the claim is DOA. Also, why are we drawing "mind" all the way down to the QM level? Have we exhausted the explanations from the level in which mind appears to manifest itself? A quantum "mind" may be possible, idk, I can tell you that it would be superior to a "standard mind" from the POV of computational theory. I don't, personally, think that even if there were qm mind - that human beings possess such a mind. We just don;t seem to be capable of the sorts of things a QM system would be capable of, if it underpinned our logical architecture directly. We seem to be leveraging mechanics much further along the scale and somewhat removed from the effect of QM. Denser than our artificial chipsets, obviously, not even approaching QM chipset density - still, immensely powerful. I mean, I just want you to understand what sort of mind I'm expecting out of a QM system. Remember that question I asked about transistor count in computers? We (human beings, our ""mind" )would be the 4b to a QMs 80b 16x density. The relationship is similar to that of ourselves and (current)computers. That's just referencing what we know, quantum systems may be even more robust and powerful. We'll need time to figure that out with side by sides. The gulf between machine, biological, and quantum intelligences would be very, very wide - as different architectures impose different limits and confer dissimilar benefits to a system.

[bennyboy]

I want to ask, assuming that we don't see this, why we don't see consciousness or mind on display everywhere we look?

Who says we don't? How would you know whether every subatomic particle is bursting with mind, or whether the universe is a giant mind, or whether in all reality, it is only a few specially-evolved entities on a little blue dot which are imbued with the special privilege of not only existing but knowing what it's like to exist? What exactly would mind "on display" look like? Would it walk and talk? Show motivated behaviors that we can relate to as human beings? Frankly, if we're talking about observation, I don't even know that other people have minds-- ultimately, I must make philosophical assumptions to arrive even at that seemingly obvious conclusion.

When I say that all interchanges might involve mind, I'm not talking about QM particles having memories, and missing their kids, and appreciating Mozart. I'm talking about building blocks, upon which a more complex mind, like a human mind, could supervene, if those energetic interchanges are brought together in the right ways. Why not? This is how things like a desk supervene on atoms which consist of 99.9999999% space. So the problem with sand wouldn't be that there's no mind. It would be that all those gazillion little sparks of mind add up to nothing, much as they don't spontaneously form into a giant cathedral. The human mind-- now THAT is a great cathedral, an it requires those gazillion little sparks to be brought into a very special relationship.

Here's my problem with looking for the fundaments of consciousness in anything larger than the most fundamental particles: how do flowing electrons "know" as they flow through a transistor that they are representing data? Would you say that every eddy and whirl of river water represents a "gate" condition right at that point where a single current splits? How about a crack in a rock which splits one way or the other depending on slight variations in temperature? Is it doing a super-advanced environmental calculation, or is it just random stuff that happened?

It seems to me that data is only data if there is someone there to call it so. But that would mean that mind exists only where an existing mind sees meaning-- something akin to the Biblical God breathing life into man.

---

We just don;t seem to be capable of the sorts of things a QM system would be capable of, if it underpinned our logical architecture directly.

If you maximized the physical potential of a ton of rock, who knows what wondrous things could be created? And yet, we usually just pile rocks together. There's no law that says evolution would maximize a given material's potential-- which in a simple way can be seen by the fact that there are idiots and geniuses with exactly identical brain chemistry.

If we consider the evolution of computers, we have smaller and smaller gates packed onto a chip. What does this mean? It means that on the older chips, much of the electric flow was wasted-- it was not organized into its maximal representation of data, and the greatest number of possible logical decisions. But let's say we continue reducing the size of systems until we get to 100% efficiency. What would that mean? I think it would mean we were working at the finest level of matter known to us: subatomic particles.


The last question is whether ALL actions at the QM level are logical decisions, or just "stuff happening." And I think this brings us back to a philosophical decision-- is something data only if we call it so?