What is consciousness?

[TScott]

What is it in our mind that makes us make sense of what our senses are telling us. Philosophers and neural scientists tell us of qualia in our minds.

When you see a red spot on the wall, how would you explain what you are seeing. If you were talking to a blind person who was born without sight, how would you explain red to that person, or any other color.

Our scientists have been on a quest to develop artificial intellegence, yet they still do not understand how our own mind works.

What do you think?

 

[sandwiches]

What is it in our mind that makes us make sense of what our senses are telling us.

The same stuff that lets a computer detect movement, color, and brightness changes through a camera.

Philosophers and neural scientists tell us of qualia in our minds.

When you see a red spot on the wall, how would you explain what you are seeing. If you were talking to a blind person who was born without sight, how would you explain red to that person, or any other color.

I guess the same way that we can't understand what the color ultraviolet or infrared looks like.

Our scientists have been on a quest to develop artificial intellegence, yet they still do not understand how our own mind works.

What do you think?

We have AIs of varying complexities already all around us. They aim weapons in our tanks, fly airplanes, control power to our tires, maintain correct pressure in hydraulic systems, manage traffic lights, alert us when they detect movement in our house or business, etc. Little by little, they get more complex and closer to our own intelligence. It's only a matter of time.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

What do you think?

The thing is, when we substract everything that is not mind or not consciouness then we don't have that much anymore. Take away the physical brain, take away memories, take away perceptions ... and then in the remains the ... uhmm ... magic must be found. (If you are looking for ... uhmm ... magic, that is)

 

[TScott]

We have AIs of varying complexities already all around us. They aim weapons in our tanks, fly airplanes, control power to our tires, maintain correct pressure in hydraulic systems, manage traffic lights, alert us when they detect movement in our house or business, etc. Little by little, they get more complex and closer to our own intelligence. It's only a matter of time.

Sure, but that is what is referred to as weak AI, regardless of the complexity it is all still just syntax. The same as a computer program recognizing the color red, it is recognizing the frequency of the light reflecting off the object, and comparing the frequency to a data array in it's data base that is labeled "red". When I look at the red cup holding pencils on my desk it evokes other images; it makes me think of the red GTO I used to have, or the georgeous red dress a girl I once knew wore. It may trigger an idea to paint my den that color because it would go good with the woodwork.

A computer progeam deals strictly in objectivity, while there is a degree of subjectivity in the way we think. I think it's this subjectivity that allows us to come up with new ideas.

 

[TScott]

The thing is, when we substract everything that is not mind or not consciouness then we don't have that much anymore. Take away the physical brain, take away memories, take away perceptions ... and then in the remains the ... uhmm ... magic must be found. (If you are looking for ... uhmm ... magic, that is)

I'm not following you. If you take away the physical brain how can anything be left?

 

[sandwiches]

Sure, but that is what is referred to as weak AI, regardless of the complexity it is all still just syntax. The same as a computer program recognizing the color red, it is recognizing the frequency of the light reflecting off the object, and comparing the frequency to a data array in it's data base that is labeled "red". When I look at the red cup holding pencils on my desk it evokes other images; it makes me think of the red GTO I used to have, or the georgeous red dress a girl I once knew wore. It may trigger an idea to paint my den that color because it would go good with the woodwork.

So, your relational database, indexing, and querying is more sophisticated and ample than a computer's. It's a matter of degrees.

A computer progeam deals strictly in objectivity, while there is a degree of subjectivity in the way we think. I think it's this subjectivity that allows us to come up with new ideas.

I'm not sure what this means, to be honest.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I'm not following you. If you take away the physical brain how can anything be left?

Sorry, I just meant that we are not looking for anything big.

 

[Eudaimonist]

What do you think?

I think that no one knows the answer to this yet.

I'll just mention at this point that I tend to favor a combination of dual-aspect theory and emergentism regarding the mind-body distinction. That means that I view brain processes and mental processes as ultimately the same processes as viewed from different perspectives. But I don't have an explanation for how this can be so.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[KCfromNC]

Sure, but that is what is referred to as weak AI, regardless of the complexity it is all still just syntax. The same as a computer program recognizing the color red, it is recognizing the frequency of the light reflecting off the object, and comparing the frequency to a data array in it's data base that is labeled "red". When I look at the red cup holding pencils on my desk it evokes other images; it makes me think of the red GTO I used to have, or the georgeous red dress a girl I once knew wore. It may trigger an idea to paint my den that color because it would go good with the woodwork.

Sounds like a bug in the human implementation of AI to me. Why can't it stay on task and keep focused like a superior computer AI can?

I'm half-way joking, but I'm not sure what kind of conclusion you're trying to reach simply because different implementations of computing give different results.

 

[juvenissun]

What is it in our mind that makes us make sense of what our senses are telling us. Philosophers and neural scientists tell us of qualia in our minds.

When you see a red spot on the wall, how would you explain what you are seeing. If you were talking to a blind person who was born without sight, how would you explain red to that person, or any other color.

Our scientists have been on a quest to develop artificial intellegence, yet they still do not understand how our own mind works.

What do you think?

I think it is an old question asked in Star Trek fiction. What could make DATA smile and "feel" happy?

I don't know where is the computer science on this now. Those military shooting robots and the Japanese dancing robots are the most recent ones I know.

 

[The Nihilist]

I think it is an old question asked in Star Trek fiction. What could make DATA smile and "feel" happy?

Did anyone else just die a little bit inside when Juvenissun called Next Generation old?

Shoot, I just realized that people can almost vote who have never been alive when that show was on

 

[jayem]

I remember reading this article when it came out. Luckily, I found it online. It proposes that consciousness is a result of interconnected and integrated data. May not completely answer the OP, but it's interesting reading.

A "Complex" Theory of Consciousness: Scientific American

 

[TScott]

A computer progeam deals strictly in objectivity, while there is a degree of subjectivity in the way we think. I think it's this subjectivity that allows us to come up with new ideas.

I'm not sure what this means, to be honest.

Well, that is really the point of the thread, and is where the question "what is consciousness' comes in. I didn't intend to have this be a discussion strictly on AI, just that there has been much discussion by neural scientists in the last fifty years over what is consciousness and what role does it play in our minds. Much of the funding going into neural science is coming from AI interests so, of course they are part of the conversation.

 

[TScott]

I'll just mention at this point that I tend to favor a combination of dual-aspect theory and emergentism regarding the mind-body distinction. That means that I view brain processes and mental processes as ultimately the same processes as viewed from different perspectives. But I don't have an explanation for how this can be so.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Not sure I follow you. It seems that brain processes and mental processes are synonymous with one another regardless of perspective. Please explain.

 

[TScott]

Sounds like a bug in the human implementation of AI to me. Why can't it stay on task and keep focused like a superior computer AI can?

I'm half-way joking, but I'm not sure what kind of conclusion you're trying to reach simply because different implementations of computing give different results.

Well, I guess another way of saying this is that humans, much of the time, think semantically. We think in subjective terms like things we prefer over others. Computers only think in terms of syntax. Preference isn't an issue.

The only reason we even bring computers up in the discussion of consciousness is because it is something that computers do not seem to have. When we really stop to think about strong AI, IOW a machine that can function in the same way as a human mind, we have to ask why do we want such a machine. Why would we want a machine that has imagination, inventiveness, enjoyment, and all the other subjective attributes we have? Love and hate, and the ability to make lots of mistakes?

An early pioneer in the field of neural networking, Igor Aleksander wrote that the main reason he worked so hard in developing an artificial mind was so we could better understand how our mind worked.

 

[TScott]

I remember reading this article when it came out. Luckily, I found it online. It proposes that consciousness is a result of interconnected and integrated data. May not completely answer the OP, but it's interesting reading.

A "Complex" Theory of Consciousness: Scientific American

Yes, thats a great article and there are some other interesting papers involving IIT. I must get back to work, but would like to discuss more on this later.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Not sure I follow you. It seems that brain processes and mental processes are synonymous with one another regardless of perspective. Please explain.

They aren't "synonymous" with one another. They aren't the same thing, but they may relate to the very same processes. Mental processes are experienced introspectively, while brain proceses are experienced extrospectively.

If you still don't follow, maybe this article will help.

A Dual-Aspect Approach to the Mind-Body Problem

My dual-aspect views are similar to his.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[sandwiches]

Well, that is really the point of the thread, and is where the question "what is consciousness' comes in. I didn't intend to have this be a discussion strictly on AI, just that there has been much discussion by neural scientists in the last fifty years over what is consciousness and what role does it play in our minds. Much of the funding going into neural science is coming from AI interests so, of course they are part of the conversation.

This answers explains nothing of this:

A computer progeam deals strictly in objectivity, while there is a degree of subjectivity in the way we think. I think it's this subjectivity that allows us to come up with new ideas.

So, explains what you mean by "A computer progeam deals strictly in objectivity."

 

[TScott]

So, explains what you mean by "A computer progeam deals strictly in objectivity."

It means that there is no subjectivity in a program. Another way to look at it is that a program operates within the rules of syntax. It can only "look up" information that we program it to look up. If you ask a computer program what it's favorite color is, what will it respond with? Sure, you could program it to respnd with "green", but it really doesn't have a "favorite". Computers deal in syntax while minds are capable of semantics. Syntax does not equal semantics.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Am I correct that you think it is impossible that a computer could have a favorite color? If so, why not?

Please describe how a human can have one. That is, define how the human brain goes about deciding on a favorite color. Then, please, tell me why it is we couldn't program that process.