Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wierd]

It would be very hard for a sophisticated mind to exist as pure EM radiation. Photon-Photon interaction is... quite difficult to accomplish meaningfully.

Unless you want to get into the strange and wonderful world of how quantum particles seem to be both clairvoyant (There were some experiments that showed that waveform collapse of superpositioned particles can happen before observation, because the particles "KNEW" they were going to be observed.)  and possessing of some limited form of consciousness, in regards to being observed. But that's a trip through Alice's looking glass, and I would rather not go there.

[Bohandas]

It would be very hard for a sophisticated mind to exist as pure EM radiation. Photon-Photon interaction is... quite difficult to accomplish meaningfully.

Gluon-Gluon interaction might be more feasible

[LordBucket]

@Wierd

I don't need to demonstrate that it's definitely the case, though. I only need to demonstrate reasonable doubt.

My position is that we don't have enough information to come to a conclusion.

[Bohandas]

surely you agree that all processes have to be stored on some physical substrate at all times, be it 1s and 0s or marks on paper?

When you listen to a television or radio broadcast, what physical substrate do those broadcasts exist on between time of braodcast and time of reception? When the path of light is altered by gravity, on what physical substrate does that path alteration occur?

The Dirichlet-Membrane commonly misperceived as empty space

2) If "asking somebody" is sufficient evidence, there's no shortage of anecdotes about life after death experiences, including a few actual studies concluding that some people do continue to have awareness after brain activity ceases. And if you hunt around, a few of them involve cases where the clinically dead person was able to recall sounds in the room after their brain stopped. Sounds that the doctors in the room agree did occur after this person's brain shut down. Tough to dismiss that as false/hallucinated memory.

Yes, you can suggest that maybe our instruments are not as good as we think they are, and that maybe brain activity does still continue after the EEG claims its stopped, but again: are you examining evidence or are you assuming your conclusion?

Even if something else was going on it's more parsimonious to assume that it's more along the line of the it's-in-the-cellular-structure-not-just-the-synapses thing that was brought up before

It would be very hard for a sophisticated mind to exist as pure EM radiation. Photon-Photon interaction is... quite difficult to accomplish meaningfully.

Unless you want to get into the strange and wonderful world of how quantum particles seem to be both clairvoyant (There were some experiments that showed that waveform collapse of superpositioned particles can happen before observation, because the particles "KNEW" they were going to be observed.)  and possessing of some limited form of consciousness, in regards to being observed. But that's a trip through Alice's looking glass, and I would rather not go there.

They know nothing. The quantum physicists (and even more so he news media that reports on their research) are forgetting the implications of relativity and space-time

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-dimensionalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)

EDIT:
Also, on a different note, with all the technological metaphors flying around here I feel it necessary to bring up the heretofore unused but nonetheless apt metaphor of a natural brain vs. an artificial brain being like a babbage engine vs. a calculator. I think that's the best illustration of the substrate issue if we insist on technological metaphors.
They both perform the same operation, but 9ne is mechanical whereas the other is electrical

[LordBucket]

The Dirichlet-Membrane commonly misperceived as empty space

Never heard of it. Casual google search suggests you're referring either to a purely mathematical formalism with no physical substance, or on obscure component of unvalidated string theory that apparently has something to do with..."electric/magnetic duality interchanges."

In either case, the point remains: if consciousness can exist in a purely mathematical non-physical construct, or if consciousness can exist in whatever "electric/magnetic duality interchange" is, then all of the assumptions being made about a physical substrate being necessary for consciousness to exist are presumably invalid.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I apologize, but it seems like, in your eagerness to impress us with knowing something relatively obscure, you've, like Granknorke, missed the context of what you were responding to.

Even if something else was going on it's more parsimonious to assume that it's more along the line of the it's-in-the-cellular-structure-not-just-the-synapses thing that was brought up before

Why? You yourself brought up the possibility of consciousness existing at the string level. Even if that was not what you intended when you made the reference. If consciousness can exist in strings or in EM fields or in the medium of gluon interactions, or fundamental forces or fields in general...then doesn't that tend to invalidate the assumption that a "brain" in the conventional macroscopic sense is the source from which consciousnesses springs?

Wouldn't it be a more "parsimonious" (your word choice, not mine) assumption that consciousness exists in the luminiferous ether, or similar, and that a "brain" is simply a communications window through which that consciousness is able to interact with physical structures?

Isn't that conceptually rather close to the "soul inhabits a body" model?

[Bohandas]

Even if something else was going on it's more parsimonious to assume that it's more along the line of the it's-in-the-cellular-structure-not-just-the-synapses thing that was brought up before

Why?

We know that biochemicals and the cytoskeleton exist and are conducive to complex structures and a range of multiple behaviors. They're not a vague unknown whose existence must be assumed.

[LordBucket]

We know that biochemicals and the cytoskeleton exist and are conducive to complex structures and a range of multiple behaviors. They're not a vague unknown whose existence must be assumed.

Did you miss the part where you implied that consciousness can exist in a Dirichlet-Membrane? Or is this entire sub-thread of discussion the result of missing the context of what was being said?

[Bohandas]

We know that biochemicals and the cytoskeleton exist and are conducive to complex structures and a range of multiple behaviors. They're not a vague unknown whose existence must be assumed.

Did you miss the part where you implied that consciousness can exist in a Dirichlet-Membrane? Or is this entire sub-thread of discussion the result of missing the context of what was being said?

Everything exists on a D-brane, except for gravitons.

[SirQuiamus]

*snip*

1) You're right, it's not a perfect analogy. There are no perfect analogies, however, which was one of the points of my post.

2) "Separating software from hardware" = Writing a piece of software from scratch and hoping that it approximates the underlying physical processes. You cannot directly extract the software from a physical medium like you would dump a ROM chip (yet another imperfect throwaway analogy :p). I cannot claim that it's impossible to write something that approximates the human mind, but I can claim that it's improbable, unfeasible, and generally not worth the effort.

) Is fire an eiphenomenon? What is it an epiphenomenon of? Is it somehow analogous with software? (My brain hurts.)

When you listen to a television or radio broadcast, what physical substrate do those broadcasts exist on between time of braodcast and time of reception? When the path of light is altered by gravity, on what physical substrate does that path alteration occur?

Radio waves are physical phenomena, and if spacetime can be "warped" as per general relativity, it has to be a "substrate" in some pretty incomprehensible way. I try to avoid talking about "materialism" because we have no fucking idea what matter is, but monism and naturalism are good words, and I'll stick to them.

1) No, consciousness has never been (forgive the imprecise phrasing) "objectively or scientificly observed." We don't have any means of measuring consciousness apart from looking at somebody and asking "hey, dude you conscious?" and observing their response. If two rocks bumping into to each other are conscious of that event, we would have no way of knowing that, because rocks don't talk. If a human were a not-conscious zombie, we would have no way of knowing that either, because humans do talk.

Consciousness is subjective, and I am of the opinion that my consciousness is a by-product of physical brain activity. I can extrapolate that reasoning to other minds if I start with the premise that other minds exist, which is what I always do, because I'm not a solipsistic psychopath. I can't know for certain whether you're a p-zombie or not, but I choose to be charitable towards fellow humans and other higher animals because I feel that it's the only reasonable thing to do. If you feel like talking to your pet rock, then go ahead, I won't hold it against you. Just don't treat animals like rocks.

If consciousness can occur within the medium of electromagnetic phenomenon, then I think SirQuiamus's premise becomes invalid.

Nope, electromagnetic phenomena are physical.

[SirQuiamus]

Initially, artificial brains will be low level simulations, likely created using surrogate hardware that slavishly simulates all of the components-- because we dont currently understand the high level process we are trying to isolate. However, given sufficient time, resources, and investigation, it may become possible to create high level simulations that require less effort to produce, and still have all the bang, for less of the buck. That's when you have software-only minds.

Yes, this actually makes sense. If your goal is to simulate physical brains, you have to start from the very bottom and work upwards. Because, as I argued above, the chain of causality in a brain begins with concrete low-level neurochemical activity and ends with abstract high-level "processes," such as complex patterns of behaviour, and illusory epiphenomena like subjective consciousness, whereas the chain of causality in programming starts at the highest level of abstraction and proceeds downwards. The inverted top-down approach of computer programming simply does not work in the context of "brain simulation."

What I still don't understand is why anyone would want to simulate a human brain, though. It just doesn't seem to be worth the effort when you could rather be studying brains without the intent of putting them in a box, or building AIs from scratch without declaring them "human" for no obvious reason. I'm not a scientist, or even a philosopher of science, so I'm in no position to make prescriptive demands, but I think it might be reasonable to have some kind of a demarcation between neuroscience and computing, because conflating the two may create metaphorical chimeras that lead everyone astray.

EDIT: Whoops, doublepost time.

[LordBucket]

If consciousness can occur within the medium of electromagnetic phenomenon, then I think SirQuiamus's premise becomes invalid.

Radio waves are physical phenomena, and if spacetime can be "warped" as per general relativity, it has to be a "substrate" in some pretty incomprehensible way. I try to avoid talking about "materialism" because we have no fucking idea what matter is, but monism and naturalism are good words, and I'll stick to them.

Nope, electromagnetic phenomena are physical.

If you originally intended specific definitions of "physical" for which electromagnetic phenomenon qualify...then what was your point?

The gist of your argument seems to be that logical structures like processes are substrate-independent and exactly reproducible in another medium, and they therefore deserve an ontological status of their own – but surely you agree that all processes have to be stored on some physical substrate at all times, be it 1s and 0s or marks on paper? (It would be rather silly to claim that a process rests in the Platonic heaven of ideas whenever it isn’t running.)

the mind qua process could just as well be construed as an epiphenomenon of the neurological brain hardware. It’s often said that consciousness is epiphenomenal and I very much agree with that idea, and I see absolutely no reason why these abstract mental processes could not be regarded as epiphenomenal by-products of physical processes. Because they are abstractions, after all, and they are never observed in nature except in conjunction with physical brain activity

If radio waves, light, and magnetic fields and so forth qualify as "physical" phenomenon for the context of your argument, and you therefore don't even  require matter to be present at all to have what you would nevertheless consider  a "physical brain" ...then what's the problem? Everything you said about the hardware/software analogy and the distinction between "logical and physical locations" becomes irrelevant: transfer your consciousness from inhabiting a hunk of meat to inhabiting an electromagnetic field. No computer or software required.

[SirQuiamus]

If radio waves, light, and magnetic fields and so forth qualify as "physical" phenomenon for the context of your argument, and you therefore don't even  require matter to be present at all to have what you would nevertheless consider  a "physical brain" ...then what's the problem? Everything you said about the hardware/software analogy and the distinction between "logical and physical locations" becomes irrelevant: transfer your consciousness from inhabiting a hunk of meat to inhabiting an electromagnetic field. No computer or software required.

I have no idea how to respond to this not-even-wrong non sequitur. Are you saying that software is electricity and electricity is consciousness and therefore my argument is invalid because what? That doesn't even begin to make sense...
...
If you disagree with my definition of "physical," please go buy a pair of neodymium magnets, pull them apart, and stick your finger between them. Still feel like saying magnetism isn't physical?

EDIT: How's this for an explanation: Replace the word "physical" with "concrete." Electromagnetic phenomena are concrete real things. They are not abstract, symbolic representations like language, mathematics, "mental processes," or software. If you cannot understand something as simple as this, there is nothing I can do for you.

[LordBucket]

If you disagree with my definition of "physical," please go buy a pair of neodymium magnets, pull them apart, and stick your finger between them. Still feel like saying magnetism isn't physical?

A magnet is not a magnetic field. Try the same experiment waving your hand through the field. Stick your fingers in the air right now and let me know if you feel the radio waves passing through them.


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/physical
"a :  having material existence"

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/physical
" ​existing as or ​connected with things that can be ​seen or ​touched:"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/physical
"Of or relating to material things"

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/physical
"Of or relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind"

A magnetic field is not a material. You can't see or touch a radio wave. You cannot perceive the curvature of spacetime with your senses. These are not physical things.

However, if you check any of those links, you'll also find two other definitions for physical, one of which basically amounts to:

"relating to physics"

And hey...if that's what you mean, then no problem. This whole thing was a silly misunderstanding based on me assuming you were intending a different meaning for a word than the one you apparently intended. I think it was a pretty reasonable mistake to make. For example, even empty vacuum "relates to physics." Go ask anyone if empty space is a physical thing. I'm guessing most of them will tell you no.


So with that miscommunication clarified, let's go back to your original statements and see if we can make sense of them:

Your post

Ok. So, you're discussing the "brain/consciousness = hardware/software" metaphor. And you give a couple objections to it, but from my point of view, the significant one is...paraphrased in my own words:

1) "Physical" (relating to physics) processes occur in "physical" (relating to physics) materials/substances/mediums. Whereas, computer software has a layer of logical/virtual obfuscation to it. For example, if you push on a ball, your hand comes into contact with the ball and applies force to it. There is a relationship between hand and ball that exists. Whereas if you have, for example, a video on a computer of a ball being pushed, no energy from the picture of the hand is being applied to the picture of the ball. The picture of the hand exists as a magnetic pattern on a hard drive platter and lights on a screen, the picture of the ball exists as a magnetic pattern and bunch of lights...and those two magnetic patterns and bunches of lights, don't interact with each other in any way even remotely close to the manner in which your hand and the ball interacted.

Is that a reasonable summary of your objection to the "brain/consciousness = hardware/software" metaphor?

[LordBucket]

you can in fact feel the curvature of spacetime with your senses, so long as it is a differential that is small enough that it stretches across your body. Tidal forces are a fun thing; this is why if you get sucked into a black hole you'll be too busy being stretched into pasta before you actually pass over the event horizon.

I would argue that no, that would be feeling your body being ripped apart. That's not "feeling the curvature spacetime" any more than smashing your fingers with a magnet is feeling a magnetic field or reading this post on your tablet is "seeing wifi."

Better example: UV light can give you a sunburn. You can look at a sunburn, you can touch somebody's sunburn and you can feel the sensation of having a sunburn. Would you therefore claim that UV light itself is a material thing you can see, touch and feel? I don't think you would. Seeing and feeling your body turned to pasta by uneven force distribution is not the same as seeing and feeling the force that's causing it to happen.

[Arx]

You can feel infrared light, though, and there's little significant difference between the two.