What is consciousness?

[jillery]

There is another contemporaneous topic about consciousness, but
instead of making this just another thread in that other topic, which
might get lost among the nand gates, I thought it deserved its own new
topic.

Thanks to Jerry Coyne for posting this Youtube video of Dan Dennet's
TedTalk about what is consciousness:

<https://youtu.be/cYh0lAWCnpI>

As usual, Dennet says a lot of interesting things, some of which I
haven't heard or thought about before, and which strike me as
profound. The following is one of those things:

*********************************************
@5:35
"I'm writing a book on magic" I explain, and I'm asked "Real magic?"
By real magic, people mean miracles, thaumaturgical acts, and
supernatural powers. "No", I answer. "Conjuring tricks, not real
magic."

'Real magic' in other words, refers to the magic that is not real;
while the magic that is real, that can actually be done, is not real
magic. Now, that's the way a lot of people feel about consciousness.
Real consciousness is not a bag of tricks. If you're going to explain
this as a bag of tricks, then it's not real consciousness, whatever it
is.

And, as Marvin said, and as other people have said, consciousness is a
bag of tricks. This means that a lot of people are left completely
dissatisfied and incredulous when I attempt to explain consciousness.
**********************************************

IIUC Dennet points out that many people dismiss naturalistic
explanations out of hand, because they view them as just a bag of
tricks and not real consciousness. I wonder if perhaps Someone from
that other topic isn't one of those people.

Here's a link to Coyne's blog which cited the above video:

<https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/08/03/a-philosophical-catfight-in-the-tls-dennett-vs-papineau/>

<http://tinyurl.com/yar6yxvk>


P.S. This has nothing to do with consciousness, but with Philosophy as
practiced today.

Some people say that philosophy is obsolete, that its contributions to
modern thinking are better done by scientists doing science.

In a way I agree with that. Science used to be called natural
philosophy, and scientists philosophers. My impression is nowadays
scientists trained as scientists do better science than scientists
trained as philosophers.

But most times I disagree. Too many times I hear of really good
scientists in their area of expertise who sound completely disoriented
and confused outside their area of expertise. And all too often, they
do a piss-poor job of explaining their area of expertise to those
outside it.

When I listen to Dan Dennet, my impression is he does a better job of
explaining science than most scientists do.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Jonathan]

Consciousness is 'real magic', as is any emergent creation.

The components have a real or physical origin, but the output
is mysterious and unexplainable in the same terms of it's
components.

This contradiction spans all of the organized universe.

There are two basic types of behavior, quantum like motion
and classical motion as in general relativity.

A simple or computable system is when it's behavior is
dominated by either of these forms of mathematics.
And when at either state the objective mindset is
happy as a clam, all works as it should, nice neat
equations that make nice neat predictions.

But when self organized, the system stands at the transition
point /between/ those two universal forms of behavior.
All evolved systems stands at the one place where neither
simple opposing forms of mathematics can describe the
system.

This is what is meant by the term 'complex' in
complexity science.

Which is the point at which objective or computable methods
are at their very weakest, and can't possibly explain
the output as it would require using the two inconsistent
mathematics at the same time, clearly impossible.

Emergent properties have a real source, they are the
result of the entanglement of both quantum and classical
behavior. Yet the output can't be computed or explained
by either source behavior, hence it's mysterious and
unexplainable in /part terms/.

And this explains the fundamental difference between
a linear or non-linear frame of reference, it's not
just different forms of equations.

A linear view of complexity would be a sliding scale
from say zero to infinity, having of course
one minimum (zero) and one maximum (infinity).

But a non-linear frame has /two minimums/ and one maximum
wrt complexity.

One minimum is the simple or computable quantum behavior.
The other minimum is the opposing computable classical behavior.
And maximum complexity is at the transition point
between the two.


Linear complexity


zero (min) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite (max)



Non-linear complexity


quantum (min) >>>> complex (max) <<<< classical (min)



There are three types of emergence, weak, nominal and strong.
Consciousness and things such as intelligence would be
in the strong category.

And there are four levels or emergent hierarchy.



Types and Forms of Emergence
Jochen Fromm
Distributed Systems Group,
Electrical Engineering & Computer Science,
Universität Kassel, Germany

(excerpts)


"David J. Chalmers distinguishes between weak and strong
emergence. His strong emergence is not deducible even in
principle from the laws of the low-level domain, while
weak emergence is only unexpected given the properties
and principles of the low-level domain. Mark A. Bedau
distinguishes between three kinds of emergence: nominal,
weak and strong. He uses weak and strong in the same sense
as Chalmers, and adds the notion of nominal emergence, which
corresponds to the general definition of an emergent
property above: nominal emergence is the appearance of a
macro property in a system that cannot be a micro property."


Conclusions

"This paper offers a comprehensive classification for the
different types of emergence, which are divided into four
basic classes:

Type I describes simple emergence without top-down feedback
and self-organization, and includes esp. intentional emergence
in complicated machines.

Type II contains the classic phenomena of weak emergence
including top-down feedback and self-organization.
It is further distinguished between stable and instable forms
in this class.

Type III covers all forms of emergence through multiple feedback
and adaptation in more complex adaptive systems due to evolution
and finally...

Type IV characterizes all forms of strong emergence in evolution.
The term strong emergence is liberated from any magical or
unscientific meaning."


"The processes which have been described by strong emergence are
not magical, unscientific or even anti-scientific. There are
no magic or supernatural powers involved, only very complex
phenomena on multiple scales. Like other forms of emergence
it may look magical, if you do not understand the inner processes.

If you have never heard of DNA and genes, then life looks
in fact magical. Yet there is a spark of truth in the idea
that life can not be explained solely by physical processes
(“Vitalism”). It is correct that the physical laws can not
describe biological forms. The laws of particles physics
are irrelevant to macroscopic phenomena.

Microscopic rules are irrelevant compared to the effects of
collective organization on macroscopic scales. This is the
paradox of emergence, which becomes most clearly visible
in the case of strong emergence. The macroscopic structures
and patterns depend on the microscopic particles, and yet
they are independent from them. This weakest form of
causal dependence is also circumscribed by the name
supervenience."

https://arxiv.org/ftp/nlin/papers/0506/0506028.pdf



/This weakest form of causal dependence is also
circumscribed by the name supervenience/



Or more simply....God.

[jillery]

On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 10:50:03 -0400, Jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

So you believe in magic. There's your problem.

<remaining wall of text left untouched and uncommented>

[Jonathan]

As defined by the sentence above. What do you dispute
about that statement? It reflects literally word for
word the widely accepted definition of emergence.

I use magic to mean non computable outputs or
creations, that's all. Do you believe everything
is computable? As in the audience can see the
props the magician is using, but can't figure
out how to produced the trick, the output.

Emergence is similarly mysterious in that
the creation can't be deduced by detailing
the parts, no matter how detailed you go.

Why are you afraid to learn something not only new, but
is a profound advance in evolutionary thought?

I quoted a perfectly respectable paper on the subject
below, Types and Forms of Emergence. And I listed
the types and forms so you wouldn't have to read
the whole damn paper.

And all I get is your usual ten word off topic
reply, what a jip.

[jillery]

On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 20:51:14 -0400, Jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>

That's not how Dennet defined it, which you would know if you had
listened to the video, or even just comprehended my transcripted
segment. You can't change his definition, and then reasonably say you
agree with him.

>Emergence is similarly mysterious in that
>the creation can't be deduced by detailing
>the parts, no matter how detailed you go.
>
>Why are you afraid to learn something not only new, but
>is a profound advance in evolutionary thought?
>
>I quoted a perfectly respectable paper on the subject
>below, Types and Forms of Emergence. And I listed
>the types and forms so you wouldn't have to read
>the whole damn paper.
>
>And all I get is your usual ten word off topic
>reply, what a jip.

Since all you posted was a wall of text non sequitur, which said
nothing at all about consciousness, you got more than what you paid
for. So quit yer bitchin'.

Like real consciousness, real emergence has nothing to do with the
supernatural and your woo misinterpretations. Take your phony umbrage
and stick it back where the Sun don't shine.

[Jonathan]

I listened to the entire video, as interesting as
optical illusions are I don't think it gets us
what we need, which is a basic understanding of
the key relationships required for consciousness
to emerge, and a way of mathematically modeling
consciousness.

> or even just comprehended my transcripted
> segment.

"'Real magic' in other words, refers to the magic that is
not real; while the magic that is real, that can actually
be done, is not real magic."

He properly defines the term magic as referring
to some supernatural intervention or outside
the realm of physical possibility. Fine.
Not sure how defining the term magic advances
the understanding of consciousness.

Consciousness does not require some supernatural
explanation, it exists as the result of real
variables and interactions.

HOWEVER emergent properties can't be modeled
completely by it's various components, it is
not computable, or now definable from it's parts.

In that sense any emergent property is mysterious
/as if/ by magic, /as if/ unknowable in an objective
way.

Again, are you claiming everything in the universe
is objectively knowable or computable?

Or are you willing to admit some things just can't
be objectively defined? And never will be?

> You can't change his definition, and then reasonably say you
> agree with him.
>

Never said I agreed with him, but I am using a
definition of magic that is analogous to
those mysterious and oh so difficult to quantify
emergent properties.

But using the concept of emergence we can say
with confidence consciousness is type 4 strong
emergence. And that classification comes with
it all kinds of mathematical assumptions.

Remember, all the exists in the universe is emergent
and by learning this concept even consciousness
comes under the gun of the mathematics of
complexity science.

That's not supernatural woo as you say, it only
seems like it to you since you don't understand
the concept.

>
>> Emergence is similarly mysterious in that
>> the creation can't be deduced by detailing
>> the parts, no matter how detailed you go.
>>
>> Why are you afraid to learn something not only new, but
>> is a profound advance in evolutionary thought?
>>
>> I quoted a perfectly respectable paper on the subject
>> below, Types and Forms of Emergence. And I listed
>> the types and forms so you wouldn't have to read
>> the whole damn paper.
>>
>> And all I get is your usual ten word off topic
>> reply, what a jip.
>
>
> Since all you posted was a wall of text non sequitur, which said
> nothing at all about consciousness, you got more than what you paid
> for. So quit yer bitchin'.
>
> Like real consciousness, real emergence has nothing to do with the
> supernatural and your woo misinterpretations. Take your phony umbrage
> and stick it back where the Sun don't shine.
>

Since I'm the only one responding to your thread
in a serious way, and spending a fair amount of
time to boot, your reply is somewhat childish.

You're the one not responding in a respectful or
especially responsive way.

[jillery]

On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:32:33 -0400, Jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>

Then post your own Tedtalk.

>> or even just comprehended my transcripted
>> segment.
>
>
>
>"'Real magic' in other words, refers to the magic that is
>not real; while the magic that is real, that can actually
>be done, is not real magic."
>
>
>He properly defines the term magic as referring
>to some supernatural intervention or outside
>the realm of physical possibility. Fine.
>Not sure how defining the term magic advances
>the understanding of consciousness.

Since you asked, and because you demonstrate a severe inability to
understand English, Dennet's point is there are people who reject
material explanations about conscioiusness, because such explanations
appear as a "bag of tricks", which they assume can't possibly describe
real consciousness. Such people are happier to pretend consciousness
is a supernatural phenomenon. HTH but I doubt it.

>Consciousness does not require some supernatural
>explanation, it exists as the result of real
>variables and interactions.
>
>HOWEVER emergent properties can't be modeled
>completely by it's various components, it is
>not computable, or now definable from it's parts.
>
>In that sense any emergent property is mysterious
>/as if/ by magic, /as if/ unknowable in an objective
>way.
>
>Again, are you claiming everything in the universe
>is objectively knowable or computable?

Nope. Again, are you claiming that's a relevant question?

>Or are you willing to admit some things just can't
>be objectively defined? And never will be?

Whether or not I admit some things can't be objectively defined, has
utterly no relevance to the veracity of Dennet's comments.

>> You can't change his definition, and then reasonably say you
>> agree with him.
>>
>
>
>Never said I agreed with him, but I am using a
>definition of magic that is analogous to
>those mysterious and oh so difficult to quantify
>emergent properties.

My mistake. I stand corrected.

Sez the poster who rates replies by the word. As long as your replies
hijack the actual topic, as you do here, they are neither responsive
nor respectful.

[Jonathan]

But how does any of his statements advance the
understanding of consciousness? Talking about
what people tend to believe or not doesn't
say a thing about consciousness itself, does it?

What do you think is responsible for consciousness?

I would imagine consciousness to be a vast network
of highly sensitive 'switches'. Each switch would
stand poised at the transition between classical
and quantum behavior, and just the slightest input
could cause a switch to suddenly collapse to one
or the other. Like a cloud standing poised at
the transition between water and vapor where
a minor change in conditions could cause it
to suddenly change states to one or the other
possibilities.

The logical structure would be vast numbers of these
autonomous 'switches' following simple rules of
operation and having a high level of freedom of
interaction.

As with any self organized system displaying
emergent properties.

>
>> Consciousness does not require some supernatural
>> explanation, it exists as the result of real
>> variables and interactions.
>>
>> HOWEVER emergent properties can't be modeled
>> completely by it's various components, it is
>> not computable, or now definable from it's parts.
>>
>> In that sense any emergent property is mysterious
>> /as if/ by magic, /as if/ unknowable in an objective
>> way.
>>
>> Again, are you claiming everything in the universe
>> is objectively knowable or computable?
>
>
> Nope. Again, are you claiming that's a relevant question?
>

We're talking about magic. If some effect can't
be objectively explained and remains forever
mysterious, that qualifies as magic to me.
Real magic as in it doesn't require any
sort of supernatural interventions, but
is naturally produced, yet still mysterious.

>
>> Or are you willing to admit some things just can't
>> be objectively defined? And never will be?
>
>
> Whether or not I admit some things can't be objectively defined, has
> utterly no relevance to the veracity of Dennet's comments.
>

I guess you refuse to answer any question that isn't
within your narrow definition of the thread?

Why?

Most discussions it's quite normal to allow
the discussion to drift to related subjects.

Will you answer the question anyways?

That's just bullshit, my replies are respectful
and an honest attempt at a conversation.

If you don't wish to answer some question just
say so, but to constantly resort to off topic
excuses as a dodge is just plain tiresome.




s

[jillery]

On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 19:07:49 -0400, Jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>

You didn't ask about consciousness itself. You asked about our
understanding of consciousness. I answered the question you asked.
How do you think Dennet's words I quoted *don't* advance our
understanding of consciousness?

As for consciousness itself, Dennet goes on about that very thing in
the video I cited. Perhaps you listen carefully to the whole thing.
It's only about 20 minutes long, almost certainly less time than you
have already spent on posts explicitly not talking about it.

>What do you think is responsible for consciousness?

That sounds like a rhetorical question to me.

Nope, we're talking about consciousness. Magic is Dennet's analogy of
many people's understand consciousness. There's a difference.

More to the point, your question suggests I claim something that IMO
is a non sequitur, ergo irrelevant. I assume there are some things
that are not knowable in every detail; Newton's clockwork universe
died with quantum uncertainty. I disagree that said recognition, even
if correct, means that consciousness is one of those things, or that
useful things about consciousness can't be discovered.

>If some effect can't
>be objectively explained and remains forever
>mysterious, that qualifies as magic to me.

Since you can't know if something would "remains forever mysterious",
your hypothetical is meaningless.

>Real magic as in it doesn't require any
>sort of supernatural interventions, but
>is naturally produced, yet still mysterious.

That's not Dennet's definition of magic. You can't reasonably argue
against his analogy by redefining his terms.

>>> Or are you willing to admit some things just can't
>>> be objectively defined? And never will be?
>>
>>
>> Whether or not I admit some things can't be objectively defined, has
>> utterly no relevance to the veracity of Dennet's comments.
>>
>
>
>I guess you refuse to answer any question that isn't
>within your narrow definition of the thread?
>
>Why?
>
>Most discussions it's quite normal to allow
>the discussion to drift to related subjects.

Your question above implies a fact not in evidence, that emergent
properties are relevant to consciousness generally, and/or Dennet's
comments about consciousness. More to the point, even if that were
established, you haven't shown how your comments about emergent
properties relate to Dennet's comments. To the contrary, you haven't
said anything about what Dennet actually said.

>Will you answer the question anyways?

You conflate a normal drift of discussions with your hijacking of
topics. You baldly claim that your one answer to everything means
that everybody else's answers are stupid. I try not to enable such
dishonest behavior.

It's no surprise you think so. That makes one of us.

>If you don't wish to answer some question just
>say so, but to constantly resort to off topic
>excuses as a dodge is just plain tiresome.

If you don't want to discuss the actual topic, just say so, but to
constantly hijack the topic with your one-solution-answers-everything
is just plain tiresome.

[Jonathan]

Good grief, did you go to school here???


http://dc3.edu/




s

[jillery]

On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 09:38:32 -0400, Jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Good grief, did you go to school here???

Your mommy is calling. Time to change your knappies.

[Jonathan]

On 8/13/2017 9:56 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 09:38:32 -0400, Jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Good grief, did you go to school here???

>> http://dc3.edu/

>
>
> Your mommy is calling. Time to change your knappies.
>

Ok Kellyanne~



Kellyanne Conway's interview tricks, explained
Published on Feb 13, 2017


"Like watching someone try to staple jello to a wall"...


video (6:31)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-7fzHy3aG0

[jillery]

On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 11:30:25 -0400, Jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 8/13/2017 9:56 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 09:38:32 -0400, Jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Good grief, did you go to school here???
>>
>>

>> Your mommy is calling. Time to change your knappies.
>
>
>
>Ok Kellyanne~

Don't keep your mommy waiting.